Slashdot Log In
Canadian Fined For Videoing Movie In Theatre
Posted by
kdawson
on Sat Nov 15, 2008 09:54 PM
from the duct-tape-it dept.
from the duct-tape-it dept.
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.
Related Stories
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Your Movie Rights Online. (Score:5, Insightful)
Am I going to be the only one who asks the obvious? Why should he be allowed to record the movie?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Not sure that it's so much that the recording shouldn't be illegal (it should be, IMO, you're paying for a one view license, at that specific time, technically, and stuff even states that,) but rather the punishment being that extreme.
Re:Your Movie Rights Online. (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh, and I'll reply to myself, because I forgot something... the fine certainly wasn't extreme, the not being allowed to possess video recording equipment outside of his house part is what I consider extreme.
Parent
Re:Your Movie Rights Online. (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.
Parent
Re:Your Movie Rights Online. (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.
Parent
Re:Your Movie Rights Online. (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Your Movie Rights Online. (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.
Parent
Re:Not extreme (Score:5, Funny)
For everything else, there's Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The ones with no camera are *cheaper*. You're just not looking hard enough. A cursory glance at my cell provider's offerings brought up the i335 by Motorola and S1 by Sanyo (i stopped looking after that) both free with 2 year agreement.
Most of the pre-paid phones don't have cameras, either, and they're actually pretty small and sporty, and refreshingly no-frills.
In fact, the one option you can't find is precisely the one you claimed you didn't want: a pricey up-scale wealth-announcer. You can't get a cam
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Well he wasn't recording the movie, only the light absorption patterns on an otherwise blank screen. Where else is he going to do that?
I wish Canadians would stop valuing corporations over science, like here in the states.
Re:Your Movie Rights Online. (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.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Besides, a movie ticket is a license to view the film once. If you want to do it multiple times you need to buy a different kind of license, called a DVD.
Re:Your Movie Rights Online. (Score:4, Interesting)
and as soon as you can record those synapses and download them off the internet we'll be hearing about mind wiping devices.
I am assuming in 2040 we'll be hearing something like this, "We wanted to wipe people's brains before, it's just up until this point the technology hasn't been available to enforce our rights. You have the right to view our movie only once, not remember it!"
Parent
Re:Your Movie Rights Online. (Score:5, Funny)
In the case of "Battlefield Earth", that would be a welcomed feature.
Parent
Re:Your Movie Rights Online. (Score:5, Funny)
I see what you did their...
Parent
Re:Your Movie Rights Online. (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, the movie is just electromagnetic radiation and variations of pressure in the air, right? Why aren't we allowed to reproduce them, huh?
The correct answer is that the whole thing is stupid. We look at copyrighted media as just the media, and not what's on it. Imagine if we did that with private data? I'm allowed to copy bits, so I can copy your bits off your hard drive, or off your bank account, or wherever your credit card details are stored. Oh, they are stored physically? Well, since I'm allowed to capture light in my camera, I'll just photograph your documents/credit card.
Thankfully, for all of us, the courts aren't so stupid. They realise that the value of media is more than the physical components. Unfortunately for some, the realisation that arrangement of mundane materials can have value in itself opens the door to applying the concept of property. I guess you have to take the good with the bad. You have to pay for your media, but then again, you get to keep the rest of your life savings.
Parent
Is this any surprise? (Score:3, Insightful)
From TFA: he is an unemployed contractor with an aggravating injury that is preventing him from working. It's pretty obvious what he's doing.
I'm not a big fan of either the MPAA or its Canadian cousin, but I don't see this as news. It's not as if they didn't warn you ahead of time that recording a movie within a theater is illegal.
Frankly, the sentence seemed reasonable. FTW, he didn't even get jail time. He should count himself lucky.
Re:Is this any surprise? (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.
Parent
Re:Is this any surprise? (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.
Parent
Re:Is this any surprise? (Score:5, Interesting)
I agree with your points. I do think that recording movies seems to be a "higher level" offence than simply electronically distributing them. If I were to see someone opening utorrent and sharing a movie, I wouldn't bat an eye*. But if I saw someone set up a video cam to record the movie, I would probably report him to theatre security.
I don't think, however, that he should have received jail time. One upshot of Canada's system of sentencing is that it allows judges to be very creative. IANAL (I am not a lawyer), but IAACS (I am a Criminology student), so here is a quick and dirty lesson on Canadian law. The relevant statute is s. 432.1 in the Criminal Code of Canada, which states:
An indictable offence is similar to a felony. If the Crown (the prosecutor) decides to proceed by indictment, the accused is given certain rights, such as the right to choose to be tried by jury or by judge, the right to be tried in a federal court, the right to a preliminary hearing, etc. In this case, the maximum jail term if the Crown elected to proceed by indictment is only 2 years. If the Crown elects to proceed by summary (similar to a misdemeanor), the rule in the Criminal Code is that the maximum jail term is two years less a day, and the accused does not need to be given the rights mentioned above. I did not read the actual case, but I'm pretty sure that the Crown elected to proceed by summary in order to avoid all the hassle of having a trial by indictment, considering the punishment would be similar either way.
Maximum sentences are extremely rare in the Canadian justice system, and jail time is generally considered a last resort, especially in summary convictions. If we considered the closest possible world (i.e., similar judge with similar leniency, etc.), the sentence for jail time would probably be considerably less than 6 months. Considering that it was his first offence, with no evidence of past or potential future offences, and that he is a relatively young adult, I can't imagine a jail sentence of more than 3 months. Judges often take into consideration the impact that jail time would have on your life (job, family, etc), on top of the already stigmatizing effect of a conviction. In this case, it is likely that the judge thought that a jail sentence would do more harm than good to the individual, that the psychological effect of being put through the system, and that a significant fine was enough to "teach him a lesson", as it were. Considering the fine requested by the Crown was only $2000, it is probably the case that the accused could not reasonably have afforded to pay a fine much higher than $2000, which would make the current fine a significant amount. Plus, as someone in his age-range, I would think that it sucks to not be able to carry around a phone with a video camera, which most new phones have nowadays.
* I, personally, would not bat an eye. Most of the people I have been in contact with (Canadians) would probably not bat an eye. The few Americans that I have talked to (on WoW, admittedly), however, seem to be pretty averse to P2P. I've gotten reactions like "Isn't it illegal?" or "Aren't you afraid of getting caught?" or other similar statements. It seems, on an anecdotal, probably unreliable sense, that the average Canadian is more lenient towards P2P than the average American.
Parent
what the law is supposed to be ... (Score:4, Insightful)
Yeah, society is sick when so many people are thinking, "But he shouldn't have been ..." instead of "Why can't the theatre just confiscate the tape, eject him from the theatre, and bar him from coming back?
As far as we know, this was a first offense.
Parent
The law and the common morality (Score:4, Insightful)
Setting aside for a moment what the law is supposed to do, we must recognize that it does reflect the common morality.
Two hundred years ago, the common view of the world was a lot more dog-eat-dog than it is now. Malthus was an optimist. Actually, Malthus is still an optimist, but the misinterpretation was considered optimistic back then. There was a prevailing opinion that the only way a person could have a reasonable standard of living was on the back of at least a few someone else's slave labor. Even the guys on the bottom accepted that idea to a certain extent. (Speaking from a "western" point of view, since we are talking about western laws. The moralities and laws of the people that were imported to be the new bottom rung didn't count, which, of course, makes the slave trade that much more evil.)
The revolutionary concept was that we didn't have to be at war with everyone else to survive. That we didn't have to oppress others to have something good of our own. And we've forgotten that concept.
And this law, frankly, is stark evidence that we have forgotten it.
Parent
Medical devices (Score:5, Insightful)
Are they going to ban retinal implants [igargoyle.com] for the blind?
Eventually they might produce quality vision that can be recorded (and of course redistributed):
The judge's comments annoyed me in this one (Score:3, Interesting)
Based on this article I don't see why. The article (and even the Slashdot summary) makes it quite clear that under the new Canadian law, it's necessary to prove that there was intent to re-distribute the illegal recording before any charges can be laid.
What happened (if the article's correct) doesn't really bother me. It's a movie protected under copyright law that he was illegally recording in a movie theatre with the intent of re-sell
Re:The judge's comments annoyed me in this one (Score:5, Insightful)
He's not saying it's the same at all. He's making an analogy. Steal a loaf of bread to eat, they will go easy on you. Steal it to sell it they will not. Record a movie for your own use, they can't even charge you under this law. Record a movie and sell copies, they can!
Would it make you feel less righteous indignation if he compared it to breaking and entering? If you break into a home with intent to rob, they'll throw the book at you. If you are caught in a storm and break into a remote cabin you stumble across, that's a completely different situation. Better?
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Good point, I mis-read it and was hasty in assuming she was saying copyright infringement is the same thing as stealing. It still irks me though that she even used the stealing analogy given the topic of the case.
The movie and recording indu
If you were right, you might be right, but, ... (Score:3, Informative)
That's not how I read the article. In fact, if I remember the article correctly, it said something to the effect that, under the new law, they don't have to show any evidence of intent to sell.
The old law, they did have to prove something, and that was why the RIAA wanted to change the law.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Based on this article I don't see why. The article (and even the Slashdot summary) makes it quite clear that under the new Canadian law, it's necessary to prove that there was intent to re-distribute the illegal recording before any charges can be laid.
No it doesn't.
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.
Riight... (Score:5, Insightful)
The house lights were turned on and the movie was shut off and Calgary police arrested him.
I'm sure all their paying customers enjoyed this. Way to encourage honest people to buy your product.
Re:Riight... (Score:5, Informative)
Actually, a police raid sounds loads more interesting than the crap they have been showing in theaters lately ;-)
Parent
What took so long? (Score:3, Interesting)
2. The theaters each have a unique embedded watermark.
3. The investigation into his wrongdoing took 6 months.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This wasn't a crime where anyone's right to physical security was threatened. Police just took their time to investigate, gathered evidence, and made a case against the accused. I don't see what's wrong with this. I'm GLAD it took this long. It means the police didn't take (m)any short cuts. This is just what due diligence by the police looks like. We still have some semblance of it in Canada.
Fine by me (Score:5, Funny)
Why not place IR floodlights around the screen? (Score:5, Interesting)
Frankly I wonder why theater owners haven't tried placing infrared floodlights all around the screen, so that any cell phones or videocameras pointed at it will only record a washed-out image. I know that some researchers at Georgia Tech have tried building a system that targets cameras and blinds them with directed IR, but that's always struck me as overkill. Just brute-force it with lots of floodlights.
Re:Why not place IR floodlights around the screen? (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...
Parent
A bit overboard on the second part (Score:4, Insightful)
I think I'm more bothered by the fact that he can't possess any video recording device, of any sort, outside of his home, for any reason, for an entire year. Last I checked, most people don't automatically walk into a movie theater the second they leave their homes.
Note to editors (Score:3, Informative)
Double Standard for Jail Time (Score:5, Insightful)
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 [wikipedia.org]
http://www.tmz.com/2007/12/11/aussies-to-adam-you-stole-our-gay-firemen-flick/ [tmz.com]
http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=335127 [ninemsn.com.au]
Hotbed, eh? (Score:4, Funny)
What makes this funny is the comments from the Paramount exec:
From the TFA:
"Canada is a hotbed of movie pirating, which is a billion-dollar loss to the movie industry," Mark Christiansen, executive vice-president of operations for Paramount Picture's motion picture distribution, said outside court after reading his victim impact statement.
- Really? They caught one guy. You had a better chance of winning the lottery than getting caught for recording a movie.
"The perception is that Hollywood stars are the only ones hurt by this, but it affects everybody who works in theatres."
- I'm sure all the high school students getting minimum wage in the theatre believe that in all their hearts, their pay and jobs will be affected by some jerk recording a fuzzy copy of a movie.
Virginia Jones, of the Canadian Motion Picture Distribution Association:
"We would have liked to see jail time, sending a stronger message. We hope this is just a starting point," she said outside court, also after delivering a victim impact statement.
- She delivered a victim impact statement? Asked for jail time? The winner, for best performance in a dramatic role is Virginia Jones.
Red LED (Score:3, Funny)
I bet a person in the movie theater could have some fun with a 9V battery, a resistor and a red LED.
Draconian penalty (Score:3, Insightful)
The Canadian Motion Picture Distributors Association was disappointed that jail time was not given
Which is why it is just as well that the prosecutor is not the same as the judge.
The man was also banned for a year from possessing any video recording equipment, even a video-capable cellphone, outside of his home.
Which is what I think is wrong on many levels. A fine is OK, I think - he knew that he was doing something that was illegal and it had to have consequences. A ban from going to theatre might have been reasonable too; but banning a person from carrying any video recording equipment in public is likely to be perceived as wrong. The validity of any law rests ultimately on public support, not on the severity of the punishments, and if penalties are seen as unreasonable, you lose the public support. We can see this in several places in UK - when the police want to investigate even a murder in certain areas, they don't get anywhere, because people don't support them. Whole local communities have somehow lost their trust in the authorities and simply don't want to help the police. From that perspective it may turn out to be a very stupid decision by the judge.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Watch the movie?
Mix sno-caps and popcorn together in one mouthful?
Hiss at my fiancee when she decides to try talking during the previews?
Pretty much the usual.
(Hey, you asked!)
Re:Phones will be getting good video (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:Phones will be getting good video (Score:5, Funny)
As soon as possible, you inconsiderate clod.
Parent
Re:Phones will be getting good video (Score:4, Interesting)
had a row of teen girls in front of us last week (their parent right in front of my 4 year old) at the Madagascar 2 showing... two people asked them to stop texting and the mgmt was not anywhere in sight. my 4 year old was getting into the movie and his feet were kicking the back of the seat (of the parent might i add) and she asked me to control my child kicking her seat... and my response was short and sweet..
I would love to have him stop once the texting by her child (and others) stopped...
I expected her to have them stop... no, she huffed and moved the group up to the neck crick seats (ones like 5 feet away) and which also put her children in plain sight of the finally walking through theatre mgmt person who asked them 2 times to stop and finally booted them...
what a great show it was...
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
what's wrong with texting?
The backlight from your phone, which you hold up while you do it, is distracting to the people behind you. Also, even if you have it set to vibrate, I can probably hear it every time a message comes in.
Re:jail time? (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.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Perhaps you misunderstood the poorly worded summary. There are two ways to read the summary: 1) You cannot create video footage in a theatre; or 2) You cannot create video footage of a movie that is being shown in a theatre. The statute is as follows (emphasis mine):
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The point of a ban like this is to keep him honest. If he is caught doing it again proving was in a theater, or was carrying a camera, is a lot easier then proving they were videotaping a specific movie. For example, if he deletes the video/tosses the disk before the police catch him, then the authorities don't have to worry about trying to restore it, or proving it was there, because he's still in trouble for having the camera or being in the theater.
Most bans imposed as a result of a criminal trial work u