2nd Canadian charged with camcording
p2pnet news | MPAA News:- “Anytime an individual goes into a movie theatre and captures a motion picture by way of photographic or video recording, it’s now considered unlawful.”
Hollywood’s MPAA?
No. Calgary detective Asif Rashid.
Claiming Canada is a hotbed of pirate crime, a haven for file sharing ‘criminals,” Hollywood lobbyists were 100% successful in brow-beating Stephen Harper’s government into changing Canadian laws to suit the movie industry.
The result was Bill C-59, Hollywood’s fast-tracked Candian anti-camcording law.
Now, 20-year-old Richard Craig Lissaman is said to have videotaped a movie at a Calgary theatre.
“Police say they were called to a theatre in northeastern Calgary after someone called them about a suspicious person complaint,” says CTV, going on, “Officers then went into the theatre, where they say the suspect was allegedly recording the Tim Burton movie ‘Sweeney Todd’.”
Lissaman is the first person in Alberta to face charges of illegally recording a movie and it’s only the second time the charge has been laid in Canada.
“Those charged under the new law could face two years in jail,” says the story.
MPAA is short for Motion Picture Association of America, with the emphasis on America.
“We started conducting a tremendous amount of training with theatres, surveillance in theatres in Calgary,” the story has an MPAA factotum saying, “and some other investigative actions as well”.
Fair enough. What with trying to act as corporate movie copyright cops —- paid for out of Canadian taxes —- on top of their normal duties, police can probably use all the American movie industry help they can get.
“The camcorder was concealed in his clothing,” Rashid said, according to the National Post, going on:
Gregory Hagen, an assistant professor of law at the University of Calgary with expertise in intellectual property and Internet law, said the changes to the Criminal Code were the result of a lobbying efforts by the association and other groups representing studios and filmmakers.
“This was not so much a legal effort but a public relations effort,” he said. “It’s to get people associating camcording in theatres with doing something that is criminal.”
But Mr. Hagen said the law could have unforeseen ramifications. Under the new act, even those who record a film for legitimate purposes — such as for criticism or a review — could be charged. Under the old law, copying snippets of films for these purposes was protected as “fair dealing,” he said.
“Under the Copyright Act, it had to be proven that the image in the camera was for some sale, or rental or distribution,” he said. “Now all you have to do is find the image and prove it was recorded without consent and that person is liable for imprisonment for up to two years.”
With America as the top country for movie piracy, Hollywood says Canada is the place for camcording crooks, backed by such as David Wilkins, Hollywood ambassador to Canada.
“Accordingly,” p2pnet posted, “new Canadian anti-piracy laws were introduced with embarrassingly indecent haste, leaping ahead of other purely Canadian problems which needed to be urgently addressed.”
The story also highlighted the case of Gérémi Adam, 25, a Montreal man who, “became the RCMP’s poster boy for the federal government’s recently adopted copyright legislation during a news conference yesterday,” said the Montreal Gazette.
Before the amendment, it had to be proven a suspect was intending to distribute an illegally recorded film before action could be taken under copyright laws.
Also See:-
Bill C-59 – Canada anti-camcording law: who needs it?, December 5, 2007
CTV – Man charged for allegedly taping movie at theatre, January 17, 2008
National Post – Alberta man charged with video piracy, January 17, 2008
posted – Montreal ‘movie pirate’ faces jail, December 5, 2007
Montreal Gazette – Alleged movie pirate faces fine or jail, December 5, 2007
Use free p2pnet newsfeeds for your site. It’s really easy!
Subscribe
to p2pnet.net | | rss feed: http://p2pnet.net/p2p.rss | | Mobile – http://p2pnet.net/index-wml.phpNet access blocked by government restrictions? Use Psiphon from the Citizen Lab at the University of Toronto. Go here for details. Download here.
January 18th, 2008 at 12:30 pm
The Bill C-59 is what causes me no to go to the movie theater any more and to boycott the movie industry. They want want to harrass us? fine! they can keep their shit for themselves but me I am not going to give money to these pigs!
January 18th, 2008 at 1:21 pm
LOL. People should stop recording movies – there are NOT worthwhile wasting your time to go and see these movies. Hollywood makes crap movies. They are all copies of each other, essentially. I prefer to watch foreign and independent movies/film, and will gladly spend a buck on these. Hollywood can keep their crappy movies, and the “police” or “authority” and play by their rules however they like it. It is nothing more than a charade and a farce. Police should be doing their job in making streets safe, keeping track of traffic, and helping taxpayers with their needs, NOT playing cops vs. bandits on behalf of the Hollywood corporations who could do a lot of good things with the money they get from their movies.
January 18th, 2008 at 2:58 pm
Bill C-59 is not harrassing us. I will gladly pay 10 dollars to see a movie.
What an idoit im glad he got caught.
January 18th, 2008 at 5:39 pm
Kelly: He got caught, essentially, for possessing a camera in a movie theatre. Had he wanted to film or take a picture of his friends reactions to the movie, he might suffer the same accusation. At this point that’s all you know, and since he was arrested and the contents of the camera presumably confiscated, it’s all you’re likely to know.
Bill C-59 has the purported purpose of reducing distribution of works copyrighted by the movie industry, but it doesn’t focus on distribution – instead it focuses on image capture. At this point anyone with a camera in their pocket – which eventually will be round about everyone – can be accused of breaking the law simply for being in a movie theatre. Perhaps you can imagine why some folks would see that as good incentive to stay out of them.
In fact you should and generally do have the right to make a personal copy of something you see, including something you paid to see. If you want to retain the right to, say, record your family and friends enjoying a theme park, concert or paid public gathering, you might want to question whether this is the thin edge of the wedge.
January 18th, 2008 at 6:47 pm
Anyone who opposes such laws should do the following; Anytime you go to the theater, take along a NON-camera cell phone, or a small box that resembles a camcorder. During the movie, hold it up as if filming. When the idiots at the theater demand for you to hand it over, insist that you’ve done nothing wrong. Tell them that you were checking the time and that they’ll have to call the cops if they want you to hand over your private property. If they do, cooperate nicely with the cops and show them that you don’t have a single device on your person capable of recording a movie. Then file a lawsuit against the theater for harassment, emotional distress and anything else you can think of. Also demand a refund of the ticket price since they most likely didn’t let you finish watching the film.
I realize that most people aren’t going to be too eager to do this, but imagine if a majority did. Theaters would have no way to tell who the real pirates are and who are only pretending. It would quickly get very expensive for them, both in monetary cost and bad PR to pick on people in the theater.
January 18th, 2008 at 8:46 pm
As a lawyer, I can say this might work.
January 19th, 2008 at 1:20 am
So if I take a picture of pictures in Maxim magazine while it is still on the store shelf am I infringing on their copyright?
I dont understand how you can get fined or jailed for recording a couple of minutes or seconds of a movie and these paparatzi that follow and harass movie stars make thousands of dollars of their images. I wonder if you can copyright your face. lol.
And I still can figure out why someone would go into a theatre and try to record the movie Do they not have the internet? Why not download it from someone who has more experience. Oh yeah and what about all the movies that where released on torrents the last couple of weeks that were all from Oscar voters. ie The Bucket List, The Quite Man, No Country For Old Men only to name a few.
January 20th, 2008 at 10:45 am
say, why don’t people start going into theaters and just pretend to record the film?
Build some fake camcorders at home out of like plastic junk and duct tape, paint ‘em black and grey, just so they look like a camcorder. hell, if you’re creative, throw in a christmas tree light for the red recording glow.
get a few dozen/hundred/thousand (whatever amount who care enough about these crazy laws to try and activily protest) to do that everytime they go to the movies.
If enough people do it, maybe the cop’s/politicians will get the idea, and change the law
(yeah, that’s doubtfull, they’d probably make carrying a simulated camcorder a crime).
But hell, it’s an idea.
August 20th, 2009 at 11:59 pm
I don’t go to the movie very often for several reasons. The first is because the price of the tickets. The second is that part of the fun of the movie is having salty popcorn, candy and a drink. The amount they charge should be illegal. It is most likely cost prohibitive to the average family today. The next thing you know you will be arrested if you have a candy bar from home in your purse.