How Do You Ban Someone From Posessing A 'Recording Device'?

from the seems-to-rule-out-a-lot... dept

Michael Geist points out that a guy in Canada has been convicted under an anti-camcording law for recording a showing of the movie Dan in Real Life (I'm sure it was big on all the torrent sites). However, what struck me as interesting was the punishment handed out. The guy is on 24 months of probation, has to perform 120 hours of community service, is barred from entering a movie theater or associating with anyone involved in movie piracy. And... he is barred from owning any recording device.

That seems a bit broad. After all, most mobile phones these days are recording devices. Any computer is a recording device. An iPod can be a recording device. I can understand the thought process that went into such a ban, but it seems to overreach in its intended impact.

29 Comments | Leave a Comment..

So Why Did The MPAA Need New Camcording Laws Again?

from the please-explain dept

You may recall that throughout 2007, the MPAA was on something of a worldwide campaign to get governments to pass new laws with stricter punishment for "camcording" movies. Of course, camcording is not really a big deal. The quality is bad, and DVD-quality releases find their way to pirates pretty quickly anyway. The "losses" from camcorded movies are minimal, though it didn't stop the MPAA from totally making up numbers that were clearly bogus. Each place they pressured to get new laws apparently represented some huge percentage of camcorded movies on the market, such that if you added them up, you were talking about well over 100%. Then, of course, there was the case where they claimed that anti-camcording laws in the US had wiped out piracy in the US. Of course, that was when they were pushing for such laws in Canada. Two months later when they were pushing for such laws in the US, suddenly New York represented 40% of all camcorded movies.

However, what was most disturbing was the idea existing laws weren't already enough to deal with whatever "problem" camcording represented. So, it's rather interesting to see that a guy who was caught camcording movies in Maryland was just sentenced to 21 months in prison under a 2005 law. So why did the MPAA scream bloody murder about needing new, more stringent laws in 2007? As for someone getting 21 months in prison for filming a movie that was probably already available online from a studio leak, well, that's a different issue for another day...

31 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Movie Director Flattered That Someone Camcorded And Uploaded His Movie

from the that's-the-spirit dept

While the folks back in Hollywood have been acting as though people with camcorders were a huge threat to the movie business, it appears that some folks outside of the Hollywood machine recognize that it's not such a bad thing at all. TorrentFreak has the story of a popular Norwegian director who seems flattered that people camcorded his movie and put it online:

"I think it's perfectly fine that some people choose to post the movie online. It shows that people are interested in it.... In the IT society of today it's naive to think that this wouldn't happen. We consider it a huge compliment."

In fact, it appears his only real problem is that the quality of recording isn't so great, though he notes that hopefully this will drive more people to the theater to see a better quality version. It's nice to see more folks in the movie business recognizing that unauthorized copies aren't the end of the world.

16 Comments | Leave a Comment..

So Why Did Canada Need A Special Extra Law For Camcording Movies?

from the remind-us-again dept

Back during the big debate over the need for new laws against "camcording" a movie in Canada, Michael Geist pointed out that existing laws were already perfectly fine in dealing with the problem. Of course, despite all of that, the power of the movie industry lobbyists was too strong and the bill still became law. So, isn't interesting to find out (via Geist again) that a recent arrest for camcording in a movie theater didn't even happen under the new law, but under the old copyright law. So, once again, can someone explain why the MPAA needed that new law and why Canadian politicians agreed to it?

4 Comments | Leave a Comment..

MPAA Moves On To Making Up Stats About Camcording In The UK Market

from the gotta-earn-those-lobbying-bucks-somehow dept

After successfully bullying Canada into passing stricter anti-camcording laws, using bogus stats, it appears that the MPAA has moved on to a new country: the UK. TorrentFreak lets us know that MPAA chief Dan Glickman has crossed the pond to warn UK politicians about the horrible "threat" of camcorded movies. Of course, he's still making up stats and still ignoring what's actually happening in the industry. We've already seen that while Glickman gets paid big bucks to hype up the threat, these laws don't seem to stop camcording activities at all. However, more importantly, camcording doesn't appear to be much of a real threat to the industry. Remember, first of all, that the industry is bringing in record revenue, despite the increasing availability of movies online. Second, the problem isn't from camcorded movies. Most of the movies you find online are studio prints leaked by insiders. Third, even with these laws the movies are going to end up online... and all it takes is one movie getting online for it to be infinitely available. Stopping just a few of those recording the movie is absolutely meaningless if a single one gets through, and it always will. If the movie industry spent a fraction of the amount of money they're wasting lobbying for these useless laws on improving the movie-going experience or offering additional incentives to purchase, the industry would be doing even better than it already is -- and no one would even worry about some movies being available online.

12 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Teen Pleads Guilty For Filming 20 Seconds Of A Movie

from the crimes-and-misdemeanors dept

Remember Jhannet Sejas, the teenager who was arrested for filming 20 seconds of a movie for the sake of showing her brother that she went to that movie? Apparently, she's agreed to plead guilty, which will get her off without any jailtime, a small $71 fine and an agreement to stay out of trouble for a year (afterwards, the misdemeanor will be taken off her record). It's unclear what this has really accomplished for the movie industry, other than highlighting that you better be careful not to take out a camera in a movie theater. A spokesman for the National Association of Theater Owners admits that it's hard for theater owners to police whose filming a movie for distribution and who's just doing it for fun, but then goes on to say that this case "reinforces our efforts to educate the public that unauthorized recording, whether a clip or the whole film, in movie theaters is against the law." Actually, it doesn't do that. It reinforces that theaters have a bunch of ridiculous and costly policies that likely cost more to implement (the article notes that they're rewarding theater employees $500 for each person they catch, which explains why you'll be seeing a lot more theater workers in night vision goggles). However, given that most of the movies you find online are actually leaked by industry insiders rather than camcorded versions (which tend not to be very good anyway), shouldn't there be someone doing a cost-benefit analysis on this? It seems like the educational campaign is quite expensive, makes the theater owners look like a bunch of bullies, and does little to nothing to stop movies from showing up online. Update: Apparently Regal Cinemas pushed hard to prosecute her. How nice of Regal Cinemas.

29 Comments | Leave a Comment..

A Year In Jail For Filming 20 Seconds Of A Movie?

from the disconnect-with-reality dept

For some odd reason, the movie industry has been really focused on the supposed camcorder threat this year. They've been talking it up with completely unsubstantiated numbers and getting various governments to pass stricter laws, making it a crime to record movies. The thing is, it's already against the law in most places. These laws are just much stricter. However, the bigger issue is that camcording is the least of the industry's worries. After all, a large percentage of the movies that are downloadable online aren't from camcorders, but are leaked from Hollywood insiders. More importantly, every movie is available online. You're simply not going to stop movies from getting online by throwing some kids with camcorders in jail. All it takes is for one copy to get online and then it's available to everyone. Stopping 99% of the people putting movies online won't make the movie any less available because all it takes is that one person to get a copy online and it can spread like wildfire. Finally, downloadable movies do not appear to be a substitute for the social experience of going to the movies. We've seen this over and over and over again -- most recently with the Simpsons Movie.

But what happens when you get into the habit of treating your customers like criminals and even get laws past to make it easier to accuse them of crimes? You get ridiculous situations like the story of a 19-year-old girl on her birthday who was having some fun with a video camera to record her trip to the local mall. She and her boyfriend went to see a movie and she decided to film about 20 seconds of it to later send to her brother to convince him to go see the movie (yes, to promote the movie, so her brother might become a paying customer). Instead, she was arrested and now faces fines and jailtime. You would think that anyone would recognize this wasn't a movie pirating situation and let it go -- but instead, the theater owner, Regal Cinemas, is pressing charges, while the MPAA is citing its discredited bogus stats as a reason that this type of action makes sense. It's difficult to see how this benefits the movie business in any way. It's scaring off people from going to the theaters, treating movie fans as criminals and discouraging them from promoting movies to their friends. Plus, on top of it all, a company like Regal Cinemas is making itself look like a bully. This helps the industry how exactly?

50 Comments | Leave a Comment..