PDA

View Full Version : Feds Vow to Lash Movie Pirates



brokenandtwisted
June 5th, 2007, 03:24 PM
Well...Canada doesn't have any pirating laws, at least extreme ones...but...:

Feds vow to lash movie pirates

OTTAWA (CP) - Hauling out a camcorder in the local cinema to pirate the latest blockbuster movie could soon carry a penalty of up to five years in prison.

The federal government introduced legislation Friday to make it a Criminal Code offence to illicitly record movies in theatres. The bill hit the Commons just two days after Prime Minister Stephen Harper promised California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger that Canada would crack down on piracy.

Under the present law, authorities have to show an illicit recording is being made for commercial use - which is difficult to prove in court.

Under the new bill, just recording a movie without permission can draw up to two years in jail, while taping a film for later sale or rental could carry a five-year penalty.

The movie industry has lobbied for years for a crackdown, saying piracy costs it billions of dollars a year.

Technology, including smaller, easily concealable, digital camcorders and Internet distribution links, has boosted the illicit industry.

Kevin Tierney, producer of the movie Bon Cop, Bad cop, says pirate versions of his film have surfaced in Baghdad and Beijing. He said 2,500 unauthorized DVD copies were seized just two days before the official release of the video.

"I once joked it was every Canadian producer's fantasy to see their movie pirated. I take that back," he told a Parliament Hill news conference, which included popcorn, cotton candy and a phalanx of beaming film industry executives..

"This bill amends the Criminal Code to directly confront film piracy," said Heritage Minister Bev Oda.

She said the legislation will avert a Warner Brothers threat to cancel Canadian preview showings of likely summer hits such as the latest Harry Potter sequel and George Clooney's Oceans 13.

The studio had threatened to cut Canada off from previews because of piracy and what it saw as lax Canadian law.

Oda said she's been told that Canada may be responsible for 20 to 25 per cent of all pirated movies.

Hollywood says it loses up to $6 billion a year to piracy, with half of that coming from videorecordings made in theatres.

Tierney said the money shouldn't go to thieves, especially in Canada where governments - and taxpayers - invest heavily in productions.

"This is our money," he said.

Oda said the bill isn't just protection for big studios.

"This will help protect the Canadian film industry from unauthorized recording that results in serious economic losses to distributors, producers, actors and technicians."

Source (http://technology.sympatico.msn.ca/Feds+vow+to+lash+movie+pirates/NewsandOpinions/ContentPosting.aspx?isfa=1&newsitemid=28101020&feedname=CP-TECHNOLOGY&show=False&number=0&showbyline=True&subtitle=&detect=&abc=abc)

I do understand but seriously...S-M3 made what, 800 million so far world-wide and they're suffering from serious economic losses? Crock of shit...

gprime
June 5th, 2007, 07:40 PM
I do understand but seriously...S-M3 made what, 800 million so far world-wide and they're suffering from serious economic losses? Crock of shit...

:rolleyes:

Even if they weren't losing a single sent to piracy, that wouldn't make it okay. They have a copyright for a reason. If IP rights go unprotected, then there no longer exists motivation to invest money in the development of virtually anything, entertainment included, because they would retain no control of their product, and thus not see a proper RoI.

Yes, some films are still making large profits. I don't think anybody is trying to deny that. But that doesn't legitimize theft, nor does it mean that it isn't impactful. Unless you would find it acceptable for the studios to break into your home and rob you, then you have no right to do likewise.

brokenandtwisted
June 5th, 2007, 08:13 PM
:rolleyes:

Even if they weren't losing a single sent to piracy, that wouldn't make it okay. They have a copyright for a reason. If IP rights go unprotected, then there no longer exists motivation to invest money in the development of virtually anything, entertainment included, because they would retain no control of their product, and thus not see a proper RoI.

Yes, some films are still making large profits. I don't think anybody is trying to deny that. But that doesn't legitimize theft, nor does it mean that it isn't impactful. Unless you would find it acceptable for the studios to break into your home and rob you, then you have no right to do likewise.

Oh...I was never arguing that it isn't wrong to pirate, however I don't believe they should complain about lack of profit. Box office shows that they're doing fine.

AnalBreeze
June 5th, 2007, 11:00 PM
I believe they should go after pirates but shut the hell up about it!
Remember Metallica? There is no way you can come across as being a victim!

gprime
June 6th, 2007, 01:56 AM
Oh...I was never arguing that it isn't wrong to pirate, however I don't believe they should complain about lack of profit. Box office shows that they're doing fine.

But them doing fine doesn't make their complaints any less reasonable. They still do lose money to piracy. And that impacts more than just the executives and high paid stars. It impacts every single employee and more importantly, every shareholder.

Killroy
June 6th, 2007, 06:22 AM
But them doing fine doesn't make their complaints any less reasonable. They still do lose money to piracy. And that impacts more than just the executives and high paid stars. It impacts every single employee and more importantly, every shareholder.

Well, after they got my money with Spiderman 3, a movie that wasn't worth the amount I paid, as well as PotC 2, I will gladly download PotC 3 after seeing the reviews and hearing first-hand accounts on how people didn't like the movie much. They aren't losing any money from me, as I have no plans on paying to see it.

gprime
June 6th, 2007, 01:28 PM
Well, after they got my money with Spiderman 3, a movie that wasn't worth the amount I paid, as well as PotC 2, I will gladly download PotC 3 after seeing the reviews and hearing first-hand accounts on how people didn't like the movie much. They aren't losing any money from me, as I have no plans on paying to see it.

But if you're willing to see it, then you're attaching a value to it, and should therefore compensate the copyright holders.

Killroy
June 6th, 2007, 01:53 PM
But if you're willing to see it, then you're attaching a value to it, and should therefore compensate the copyright holders.

Nah. I'll compensate them if the movie is any good. That's the thing about movies, you just don't know if you will like it until you have watched it. Dunno what to tell the copyright holders aside from telling them to quit cranking out shit and give us more Children of Men, Hot Fuzz, etc. Those are movies I was not only glad I paid ticket price for, but bought the DVD's as well.

The last PotC movie was worth a dollar or two. Basing the reviews and comments from other people who have seen the latest film, this movie is worth about the same. But since I cannot judge for myself until I see it for myself, I'm downloading it. If it is good enough for a ticket price, I'll go see it just like I see all the other movies I watch in the theater.

If it sucks, I'll be more than happy to send them the dollar it's worth.

CPL CHUD
June 6th, 2007, 02:02 PM
The only films I've pirated are ones I can't seem to find anywhere to watch; like the uncut version of The Burning. I'm probably going to do the same with The Begotten. An 50 dollar price tag on any DVD on amazon is ridiculous.

Killroy
June 6th, 2007, 02:14 PM
The only films I've pirated are ones I can't seem to find anywhere to watch; like the uncut version of The Burning. I'm probably going to do the same with The Begotten. An 50 dollar price tag on any DVD on amazon is ridiculous.

Yeah, I do that for obscure films as well. Monster Squad is one I have had on DVD-R forever.

I do have a question though. Let's say I do not download the latest PotC. But a few months down the road, I watch it at my friends house for free or buy the DVD from a friend? How are the copyright holders and employees seeing one dime of my money in those cases? What is the difference?

I ask this only so I can get clarification on this "copyright holder getting their money" thing. If someone wants to get into the subject of it's just wrong to steal, then OK, I can understand that position.

CPL CHUD
June 6th, 2007, 02:20 PM
They don't see any money from you, but they did see some from one of your friends. In those scenarios you'd have to assume that someone had to have paid for the content of the DVD originaly.

Personaly I don't have a big issue with individuals downloading copyrighted content without selling it for redistribution. That's how most of my friends find out about obscure movies and music they wish to seek out further.

AnalBreeze
June 7th, 2007, 12:40 AM
Yeah, I do that for obscure films as well. Monster Squad is one I have had on DVD-R forever.

I do have a question though. Let's say I do not download the latest PotC. But a few months down the road, I watch it at my friends house for free or buy the DVD from a friend? How are the copyright holders and employees seeing one dime of my money in those cases? What is the difference?

I ask this only so I can get clarification on this "copyright holder getting their money" thing. If someone wants to get into the subject of it's just wrong to steal, then OK, I can understand that position.

It's NO different, That is my argument for downloading music... Fuckin' somebody paid for it! If I hear it in my friends car and borrow his cd and keep it for awhile or forever!
Somebody paid for it! How many times do they want to be paid for the same cd?

gprime
June 7th, 2007, 11:43 AM
The only films I've pirated are ones I can't seem to find anywhere to watch; like the uncut version of The Burning. I'm probably going to do the same with The Begotten. An 50 dollar price tag on any DVD on amazon is ridiculous.

I'm similar, except that I wouldn't consider rarity an excuse. I'd instead base it off whether or not a DVD release either does or did exist. The DVD-rs that I have that don't meet that requirement stem from that horrible experience with Visual Pain where most of what they sent me was incorrect, and they refused to fix it.

gprime
June 7th, 2007, 11:44 AM
I do have a question though. Let's say I do not download the latest PotC. But a few months down the road, I watch it at my friends house for free or buy the DVD from a friend? How are the copyright holders and employees seeing one dime of my money in those cases? What is the difference?

I ask this only so I can get clarification on this "copyright holder getting their money" thing. If someone wants to get into the subject of it's just wrong to steal, then OK, I can understand that position.

Well yes, I'm taking issue with the theft.

Killroy
June 7th, 2007, 11:53 AM
Well yes, I'm taking issue with the theft.

Yeah, I have no defense for that. I do not feel I am hurting anyone financially by watching a movie I had no plans on paying for, same with games, but no matter how you try and slice it, it is theft.

Oh well, until I can get refunded for watching a shitty movie I paid for or a game I played, I'll just enjoy my skewed moral compass and decreased chances of being ripped off.