Will Canada ban camcorders?
p2pnet.net news:- Hollywood’s MPAA (Motion Picture Association of America) is pressuring the Canadian government to ban the unauthorised possession of camcorders, with jail terms for transgressors, p2pnet has been told by a normally unreliable source.
The MPAA is leading an all-out attack against Canada claiming the country’s lax regulations are directly responsible for staggering industry revenue losses.
Canada is the favourite port of call for online pirates who use camcorders to ’steal’ Hollywood features from cinemas, mostly in Montreal, states the trade organisation, which reported record revenues for 2006.
Canon says its HR10 slated for release in August at $1,200, is the smallest in the world. But it’s, “ideal for online pirates,” the anonymous movie industry source told p2pnet during a meeting in an ill-lit underground garage.
“Consumers should not be fooled by the small stature of the Canon HR10 High Definition Camcorder, says a Canon statement, adding, “Quick Start allows the camera to go from standby mode to shooting in a fraction of a second, helping to ensure that those special moments are not missed.”
The industry source said MPAA lobbyists would shortly be visiting Ottawa to educate Canadian politicians on the dangers of allowing cameras such as the HR10, but excepting similar Sony products, into the country.
The lobbyists will also present detailed outlines for suggested new legislation. “We are sure your government will find our recommendations valuable,” the source stated.
“Dear Prime Minister,” wrote US senators Dianne Feinstein and John Cornyn to Canadian prime minister Stephen Harper recently.
“We are writing to call your attention to the explosive growth of pirating of movies from theaters through the use of hand-recorders known as ‘camcorders.’ The theft and sale of newly-released movies has always been a serious threat to the motion picture industry. Now, the advancements of digital technology and improved camcorder capabilities have compounded the problem.”
Harper’s response hasn’t yet been reported.
Also See:
all-out attack – Hollywood bans Canada, May 8, 2007
Canon – CANON U.S.A.’s NEW HR10 HD CAMCORDER, May 7, 2007
use of hand-recorders – Hollywood muscles Canada, March 6, 2007
If your Net access is blocked by government restrictions, try Psiphon from the Citizen Lab at thIs the endSurvey: How Did Copyright Infringement Become Equated with Robbery? (of the Net) nigh?zze University of Toronto’s Munk Centre for International Studies. Go here for the official download, here for the p2pnet download, and here for details. And if you’re Chinese and you’re looking for a way to access independent Internet news sources, try Freegate, the DIT program written to help Chinese citizens circumvent web site blocking outside of China. Download it here.
rss feed: http://p2pnet.net/p2p.rss | | Mobile – http://p2pnet.net/index-wml.php | | And use free p2pnet newsfeeds for your site
Tired of being treated like a criminal? They depend on you, not the other way around. Don’t buy their ‘product’. Do bug your local politicians. Use emails, snail-mail, phone calls, faxes, IM, stop them in the street, blog. And if you’re into organizing, organize petitions, organize demonstrations and then turn up on your local political rep’s doorstep, making sure you’ve contacted your local tv/radio station/newspaper in advance. Don’t just complain. Do something!
May 8th, 2007 at 4:13 pm
Cameras cause child pornography.
Fertilizer causes terrorism.
Motor vehicles cause traffic deaths.
Flatware, food, and plates cause obesity.
Guns and knives cause murder.
Scientists cause disease in laboratory animals (This one is true).
Yippee, is the government going to ban all of these too?
May 8th, 2007 at 6:50 pm
100% of the people who have consumed bread or a bread product have DIED!!!
BAN BREAD!
May 9th, 2007 at 12:18 am
So is it legal to bring a camera into a theatre??
Cause if it is illegal why bother with the hassles of buging us about it.
May 9th, 2007 at 11:42 am
You know WHY??? Because Sony cameras are loaded with DRM devices that the company states make YOUR photos THEIR property!!! Canon, as far as I know at this time, has no such devices……YET.
May 9th, 2007 at 4:19 pm
While I am not supportive of much the motion picture has to say on political issues, I think we shouldn’t be so strongly opposed to changes simply because they come from untrustworthy organizations.
I wrote about the camcordering issue in a recent BLOG article:
USTR 2007 Special 301 Report: accepting the good while rejecting the bad.
http://www.digital-copyright.ca/node/3910
“While I don’t agree with the focus on camcordering in theaters, I believe that we do need laws to more generally help business and private owners to disallow recording devices. The City of Ottawa owned pools have signs as you enter the change rooms prohibiting the use of recording devices, and strong legislation to punish anyone who breaks this privacy-protecting rule should exist. The same law that protects the privacy of people in change rooms can also be used to protect the interests of copyright holders. Copyright holders would have a ban on recording devices within theaters as part of their contract with the theaters, and the theaters would have a strongly legally protected right to ban recording devices from their theaters. We historically had laws prohibiting “wiretapping” which needs to be expanded to include all recording devices (Video is seen by citizens to be more personal than audio) and not be limited to only the government (private-sector infringement of our rights is still an infringement of our rights). We don’t need every tool that a copyright holder might use to protect their rights to be embedded in the copyright act. This only bloats an already excessively complex act that needs to have “clarifying and simplifying the Act” put as a primary goal of any amendments changes.”
May 10th, 2007 at 12:55 pm
While I agree that theaters can prohibit speaking and the use of cameras, radio, cel phones and any device that interfere with other’s ability to enjoy a movie, a sign saying which devices and behaviour are not allowed and that the theater may eject anyone from the theater is allright with me.
Most theaters and restaurants and many businesses in my neighborhood have a sign saying that management reserves the right of admission. No one complains about this, and no law is involved
Now, jumping from the traditional rights business have to making undesirable behavior a criminal act is something else.
Surely a drunk who is bothering other customers should be expelled from a theater, restaurant r whatever. But criminilizing nuisance behaviour is a very serious matter, and is best not done, least of all for the purpose of doing a favor to the filmakers from other countries, unless we want half the population in jail.
Rafael Venegas
gvenegas.com