Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?
Media Government Movies The Courts News

Canada Responsible for 50% of Movie Piracy 459

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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Canada Responsible for 50% of Movie Piracy

Comments Filter:
  • Due South (Score:5, Funny)

    by aedan ( 196243 ) on Friday January 26, 2007 @03:24PM (#17773484) Homepage
    Benton Frasier would never do this.
  • by popo ( 107611 ) on Friday January 26, 2007 @03:25PM (#17773486) Homepage
    ... is pr0n

  • It's all that bitch Anne Murray's fault!
  • South Park (Score:5, Funny)

    by jours ( 663228 ) on Friday January 26, 2007 @03:26PM (#17773506)
    Looks like the South Park gang was right after all.
  • Problem (Score:5, Insightful)

    by tomstdenis ( 446163 ) <> on Friday January 26, 2007 @03:26PM (#17773518) Homepage
    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.

    • The average Canadian actor makes $12,000 a year. I'm not sure what your counterparts down there make, but I doubt it is millions, on average. A very, very select few make that kind of money.

      Ever heard the term "starving artist"? It applies to actors.
      • Re:Problem (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Captain Splendid ( 673276 ) <> on Friday January 26, 2007 @04:15PM (#17774556) Homepage Journal
        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: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by tomstdenis ( 446163 )
        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.

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by trianglman ( 1024223 )
        Its not just Canadian actors. After NAFTA, all North American movie studios, actors, directors, etc. got screwed by Hollywood. Related article on NPR [].
    • I can see how musicians can earn money by performing, but that doesn't apply to the movie industry. Reproductions are all they have. What business model do you propose?
      • by rhombic ( 140326 )
        Live theater?

        I usually enjoy them more than the worthless movies vomited out by H-wood anyway.

      • by Knuckles ( 8964 )
        Theater ;)
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by TheRaven64 ( 641858 )
        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
    • Re:Problem (Score:5, Interesting)

      by BewireNomali ( 618969 ) on Friday January 26, 2007 @03:56PM (#17774176)
      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 (Score:5, Insightful)

        by drinkypoo ( 153816 ) <> on Friday January 26, 2007 @04:08PM (#17774414) Homepage Journal

        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: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by aeryn_sunn ( 243533 )
      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
    • Re:Problem (Score:4, Interesting)

      by neoform ( 551705 ) <> on Friday January 26, 2007 @04:19PM (#17774642) Homepage
      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.
      • 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.
  • by Hobobo ( 231526 ) on Friday January 26, 2007 @03:26PM (#17773522)
    They're going to delay movie releases to combat piracy? Brilliant!
    • They're going to delay movie releases to combat piracy? Brilliant!
      Well, their first plan was to just start making really shitty movies that nobody would want to waste drive space or blank DVDs on but they underestimated how desperate people are for new releases.
      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        by iamhassi ( 659463 )
        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
    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Firefly1 ( 251590 )
      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?
    • by tomee ( 792877 ) on Friday January 26, 2007 @03:34PM (#17773722)
      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.
    • its to fight cams? -much ado aboot nothing! :)
      the problem(?) was never cams. Since the days when I woored a video store and was given pre-release films to watch at home, it has never been about cams.
    • by $RANDOMLUSER ( 804576 ) on Friday January 26, 2007 @03:51PM (#17774068)
      So by that logic, if they delayed the release EVERYWHERE by two weeks, they'd stamp out piracy alltogether?
  • by tkrotchko ( 124118 ) * on Friday January 26, 2007 @03:27PM (#17773532) Homepage
    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?
    • So the Canadians will have to wait a few weeks longer before they get to see a movie in the theater. This would be done to stop 'telesync' copyright infringement in Canada, but I see it as an incentive to get a pirated copy from the 'net.
      • Telesync (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 26, 2007 @03:43PM (#17773912)
        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.
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by 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
    • by gstoddart ( 321705 ) on Friday January 26, 2007 @03:38PM (#17773810) Homepage

      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.

      • Blank media? Can't you just download it all to a super cheap hard drive?
        • Blank media? Can't you just download it all to a super cheap hard drive?
          At one point, they had been talking about applying the levy to hard-drives. Not sure of the current status of that.

    • It's llike the current administration does:

      Programs in cities that succeed in stopping teen pregnancy get more money.

      Schools in cities that don't effectively increased student achievement get less money.

      (Hint: the successful programs don't need more money - they're doing the job. The schools who aren't need to be analyzed and fixed, not clobbered.)

    • by antiMStroll ( 664213 ) on Friday January 26, 2007 @04:36PM (#17774980)
      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: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by ArtDent ( 83554 )
      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, Canadia
  • by zyl0x ( 987342 ) on Friday January 26, 2007 @03:27PM (#17773534)
    ..we're not a real country anyway.
  • Brrrrr.... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Otter ( 3800 ) on Friday January 26, 2007 @03:28PM (#17773564) Journal
    ...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?

  • by scooviduvoctagon ( 801935 ) on Friday January 26, 2007 @03:30PM (#17773616)
    We're obviously going to need to declare war on Canada. This aggression will not stand.

    Piracy is IP Terrorism.

  • by Doug Dante ( 22218 ) on Friday January 26, 2007 @03:30PM (#17773632)

    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 (Score:4, Funny)

    by VEGETA_GT ( 255721 ) on Friday January 26, 2007 @03:30PM (#17773644)
    The US is the other 50%.
  • by 140Mandak262Jamuna ( 970587 ) on Friday January 26, 2007 @03:34PM (#17773724) Journal
    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.

    • by ADRA ( 37398 )
      But, the movie companies make a hell of a lot more money off overcharging Americans and if that revenue stream dries up they'd have to start making good movies again!

      PS: Some good movies do slip through in the Hollywood crap factory, like Children of Men. That movie was great.
  • by Jackie_Chan_Fan ( 730745 ) on Friday January 26, 2007 @03:34PM (#17773736)
    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.
    • Hollywood needs Canada's money more than Canada needs Hollywood's film releaes in theaters.

      That applies not just to Canada, but everywhere. If the world ended tomorrow, Hollywood would be SOL. If Hollywood ended tomorrow, there would be a dozen more mini-hollywoods around the globe ready to step in. In fact, there already are - Hong Kong, Vancouver, Seoul and Mumbai to start with.
  • And all this time all I thought Canada was good for was giving us Steve Nash. But Nash *and* that copy of The Transporter that I watched to make sure it's not worth paying $ for, well wow what else can one want?
    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      by evil-osm ( 203438 )
      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!
  • I'm Canadian. (Score:4, Informative)

    by Grey Ninja ( 739021 ) on Friday January 26, 2007 @03:38PM (#17773824) Homepage Journal
    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. (Score:5, Interesting)

      by kebes ( 861706 ) on Friday January 26, 2007 @03:55PM (#17774160) Journal
      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: [].
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Egonis ( 155154 )
      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: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by fahrbot-bot ( 874524 )
        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

  • by davecb ( 6526 ) * <> on Friday January 26, 2007 @03:39PM (#17773828) Homepage Journal

    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...


  • Incorrect facts? (Score:5, Informative)

    by HFShadow ( 530449 ) on Friday January 26, 2007 @03:39PM (#17773832)
    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: (Score:3, Informative)

      by poulbailey ( 231304 )
      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: []
  • by WillAffleckUW ( 858324 ) on Friday January 26, 2007 @03:40PM (#17773856) Homepage Journal
    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 (Score:2, Interesting)

    by strobe74 ( 617588 )
    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.
  • by sinij ( 911942 ) on Friday January 26, 2007 @03:44PM (#17773916)
    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 (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Pizentios ( 772582 )
    To bad, cause a Canadian Judge ruled that file sharing isn't illegal in Canada. See [] 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
  • In fact, don't release some of them at all.
  • This 'study' is all about keeping the pressure up on Canada's heritage board, which is currently conducting a review with the aim to 'update' our copyright laws. As mentioned in a previous Slashdot article, they seem to be focussing on some sort of curtailment of our fair use provisions. Civil rights groups have been arguing against this, of course, so this is just another slavo from industry to try and push harder.

    I'll be surprised if we have any rights left when they're done with this..
  • by thatguywhoiam ( 524290 ) on Friday January 26, 2007 @03:53PM (#17774122)
    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.

    • 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.

      You are correct. I attribute this "50 per cent" statement either to deliberate hyperbole or the belief in Hollywood that only American movies count, so perhaps changing this statement to read "50% of pirated American movies c
    • ...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

  • Canada, huh. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Nom du Keyboard ( 633989 ) on Friday January 26, 2007 @03:54PM (#17774130)
    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!
  • from TFA:

    Serge Corriveau, vice-president and national director of the Canadian Motion Picture Distributors Association, said law enforcement agencies don't see movie piracy as a big problem.

    Perhaps because they have better things to do with their time? Like catch criminals?

    According to the 2006 watch list, "piracy in these countries is largely the result of a lack of political will to confront the problem."

    Maybe 'cause most Canadians don't consider it to be a problem and would rather politicians focus on

  • Advancing the practice of extremely shady accounting in order to avoid paying taxes and royalties?

    90% of the fucking horrible movies released worldwide.

    Remaking the same movies over and over with slightly changed scripts, or even the exact same one. (Parent Trap, Freaky Friday, Poseidon, etc. The wikipedia entry of movie remakes has had to be split into 2 pages)

    Honestly, I don't give a flying fuck about what the movie industry perceives to be these horrible wrongs perpetrated against them. They're making
  • Thank you! (Score:4, Funny)

    by kmac06 ( 608921 ) on Friday January 26, 2007 @04:02PM (#17774276)
    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.
  • Riiiight... that will definitely reduce the desire to pirate movies in Canada.

    Everyone knows you can't trust a Canadian... you just can't. Thanks MPAAfia!

  • So they want to help curb piracy by delaying the release of movies to the Great White North. That's not necessarily a bad thing. Instead of being bombarded and possibly swayed by snazzy ads, trailers, etc.., we would have more information at our disposal find out before a movie even hits our screens whether its worth shelling out 10$ to go see or not. Either looking at US ticket sales, online reviews, chatting with friends in the US, etc..) So in that regard, it would be saving us from some of the Hollywoo
  • I stopped going to movie theaters about three years ago. I read on the bottom of the ticket I bought a warning that said "cellular phones with cameras are not permitted in the theater."

    I did enjoy watching movies on the big screen, but if that's the way you treat your customers, then fine. I'll take my business elsewhere.

    I've since abandoned them for live shows at bars and concerts (in small venues). It's a little more expensive, but they treat their customers with more respect. And there's beer.

  • so what's the big deal? ;-)

  • by Cervantes ( 612861 ) on Friday January 26, 2007 @04:36PM (#17774984) Journal
    On behalf of all Canadians...

    You're welcome.


    PS: We promise to seed more.
  • Actually.... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by alisson ( 1040324 ) on Friday January 26, 2007 @05:52PM (#17776424)
    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.
  • by gorbachev ( 512743 ) on Friday January 26, 2007 @07:02PM (#17777604) Homepage
    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.

"This is lemma 1.1. We start a new chapter so the numbers all go back to one." -- Prof. Seager, C&O 351