Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Behind the Scenes of Canada's Movie Piracy Law

Posted by Zonk on Tue Jun 12, 2007 07:43 AM
from the backroom-handshakes-and-money-exchanges dept.
An anonymous reader writes "Michael Geist's latest Toronto Star column features a behind-the-scenes look at how Canada got its movie piracy bill based on internal government documents obtained under the Access to Information Act. Few will be shocked to learn that Hollywood lobbyists provided draft legislation months earlier as part of their barrage of lobbying, though the documents show that advisers to the Minister were skeptical that the proposal would accomplish anything. From the article: 'The industry's lobby efforts were clearly successful. Ignoring the inconsistent claims, the absence of evidence that Canadian films are being affected, the contrary internal advice, and the bracing reality that Hollywood has acknowledged that the U.S. is by far the largest source of illegal camcording worldwide notwithstanding its movie piracy legislation, Bill C-59 is expected to sail through Parliament. In doing so, Ottawa is sending Canadians two messages. The first is what drew the industry standing ovation - unauthorized camcording will not be tolerated in Canada even if it means diverting law enforcement resources from health and safety issues to movie theatres. The second is that private meetings, foreign pressures and lobbyist drafted bills is how law gets made in Canada.'"
+ -
story

Related Stories

[+] News: Canadian Theatre Chain Sued for Abusive Search 374 comments
An anonymous reader writes "A Canadian theater chain has been sued for an abusive search for camcording equipment. A Montreal woman is seeking $60,000 in damages for the search, which comes after the Canadian government caved to US pressure and enacted anti-camcording legislation."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • uh... (Score:4, Insightful)

    "even if it means diverting law enforcement resources from health and safety issues to movie theatres"

    I'd rather not do that... to me, health and safety is worth more than money.
    • I'd rather not do that... to me, health and safety is worth more than money.

      Then you obviously dont have enough yet. :)
    • Whilst I'm no fan of Draconian laws, or excessive interferece in the making of those laws, I feel that the number of law enforcement resources that will be diverted is not going to be significant. After all, it hasn't been a factor in the States, has it?
      • Right. That would never ever happen in the land of the brave and the free. Ever [slashdot.org].

      • by 1800maxim (702377) on Tuesday June 12 2007, @08:47AM (#19477027)
        my friends went to the movies on Saturday, and guess what the police is hired to do? The police is hired to check everyone's bag as they enter the theatre to make sure there is no camcorder. That is the most idiotic thing that Canadian politicians did - cave in to a foreign country's lobbying group, at the expense that each teenager and older person has his or her bag examined.

        Greater lineups? You bet! However, it's not so much the lineups as the feeling that a little bit of dignity is robbed away from you.
        • by Opportunist (166417) on Tuesday June 12 2007, @10:51AM (#19478469)
          Oh, don't worry. The lines will be longer for a little while, but only 'til people are so fed up with being considered a criminal for wanting to watch a movie that even more refuse to go to the cinemas anymore.

          And of course, this will all be blamed on the evil pirates. Instead of adding police state methodes on top of overpriced tickets and crappy movies without a script worth the name.
    • by Robber Baron (112304) on Tuesday June 12 2007, @08:49AM (#19477047) Homepage
      Don't you know that the most egregious and offensive crime you can commit is stealing (back) from the rich?
      • Don't you know that the most egregious and offensive crime you can commit is stealing (back) from the rich?
        I see Dick Cheney has paid us a visit and he modded me troll!
  • by TheGrumpster (1039342) on Tuesday June 12 2007, @07:48AM (#19476473) Homepage
    And this is news? Come on, you don't really think Canada (or any other "civilized" country is soverign, do you? What Hollywood (or any big business, for that matter) wants, they get, governments be damned. Face it, the only vote anyone on this planet really has is measured by how much money they have in their wallet.
    • I think its more along the lines of "Stephen Harper as his head shoved so far up Bush's ass that when Bush speaks, Harper can see his adenoids".

      This is what you get when you combine a bunch of red-neck fundamentalists (the Reform Party) with a bunch of burned-out hacks desperate for power at any cost (what was left after the original Conservatives imploded).

      Maybe we should all just separate from Ottawa.

      • by debest (471937) on Tuesday June 12 2007, @08:14AM (#19476681)

        I think its more along the lines of "Stephen Harper as his head shoved so far up Bush's ass that when Bush speaks, Harper can see his adenoids".

        My favourite version of this quote is, "Stephen Harper is so far up George Bush's ass that he can almost see Tony Blair's feet."
  • Changes in my life (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Kinthelt (96845) on Tuesday June 12 2007, @07:55AM (#19476535) Homepage
    All it means to me is that it will be harder to smuggle food into the theatres.
  • In doing so, Ottawa is sending Canadians two messages. The first is what drew the industry standing ovation - unauthorized camcording will not be tolerated in Canada even if it means diverting law enforcement resources from health and safety issues to movie theatres. The second is that private meetings, foreign pressures and lobbyist drafted bills is how law gets made in Canada.

    ...not that there's anything wrong with that...

  • by iplayfast (166447) on Tuesday June 12 2007, @07:56AM (#19476551) Homepage
    A film maker's job is to create an alternate reality and make it believable. They've just done that in real life.
  • The first is what drew the industry standing ovation - unauthorized camcording will not be tolerated in Canada even if it means diverting law enforcement resources from health and safety issues to movie theatres.

    I don't know about you Canadians, but if I lived there this would piss me off beyond comprehension. (It still pisses me off even though I don't live there, but if I did live there and my wife died at a car accident scene because no cops were around and someone else ran into her car....yeah. It wou

    • Law enforcement is a provincial issue. The Provinces will just let out a collective yawn and ignore it. This law is just a publicity stunt and has no real meaning. Bear in mind that even the Supreme Court of Canada isn't really supreme. The provincial courts have a higher status than the Supreme Court in Ottawa. If you are found guilty in a province and not guilty in Ottawa, then you better stay in Ottawa and not head home. It happens once in a while.
  • by davecb (6526) * on Tuesday June 12 2007, @08:01AM (#19476593) Homepage Journal

    The bill, at Bill C-59 [parl.gc.ca] says that it's only a crime if the theatre manager says so.

    This allows the manager to set his own camera up in the projection room, which is conveient, but not as convenient as running the film through a scanner or the DVD through a duplicator.

    Perhaps the drafters think that theatre managers can't be bribed?

    --dave

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      Exactly - it is a Work Reservation bill. Something that one would expect a Trade Union to create. It ensures that managers can keep their monopoly on pirating of movies. The provinces will just ignore this silly bill - as with most things coming out of Ottawa. Canada is a weak federation. Ottawa has almost no power inside the country.
      • Wouldn't it be something a trade union would object to, as only a manager can brak the law with impunity (;-))

        --dave

    • I like this part:

      3) In addition to any punishment that is imposed on a person who is convicted of an offence under this section, the court may order that anything that is used in the commission of the offence be forfeited to Her Majesty in right of the province in which the proceedings are taken. Anything that is forfeited may be disposed of as the Attorney General directs.
      Her Majesty is going to own a lot of camcorders.
      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        Actually she won't: the great majority of copies are made using professional scanners/duplicators, from "screener" DVDs and distributed films. Only a small number are done by amateurs, ofen in the third world where bribes are cheap but scanners are expensive

        --dave

  • by nurb432 (527695) on Tuesday June 12 2007, @08:01AM (#19476599) Homepage Journal
    They bought it.

    No one should be the least bit surprised. Its how governments work now.
  • There too? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by $RANDOMLUSER (804576) on Tuesday June 12 2007, @08:02AM (#19476605)

    ...private meetings, foreign pressures and lobbyist drafted bills is how law gets made in Canada
    Sounds a lot like the country just south of Canada, too.
  • by packetmon (977047) on Tuesday June 12 2007, @08:05AM (#19476623) Homepage
    The first is what drew the industry standing ovation - unauthorized camcording will not be tolerated in Canada even if it means diverting law enforcement resources from health and safety issues to movie theatres. A nice exaggeration if I ever saw one... Anyhow. To be the devil's advocate here, has anyone taken the time to do some research on where bootleg movies come from? Before people anywhere start shooting off at the mouth, they should take a look at where the vast majority of RECORDED movies comes from. Then they should focus on fixing that solution. Implementing moronic laws such as "No Camcorder Left Behind" lobbied by deep pocketed Hollywood sharks will never fix the problem. Common logic will dictate survival of the fittest with this said let me be an usher at a movie theater. Let someone come in with a camcorder... My wage is say $15.00 per hour as an usher... Someone is paying me $1000.00 to play Ray Charles/Stevie Wonder. Guess what? Survival of the fittest. This is anywhere you go.

    The second is that private meetings, foreign pressures and lobbyist drafted bills is how law gets made in Canada. Unless the one who posted this has been living in a bomb shelter for the past 50 years... Has anyone ever noticed that businesses have been dictating laws since the inception of time? Coca Cola and others did similar things in Latin America once upon a time, Airbus in France, and countless other companies here in the US. Get over it.
    • Democracy is supposed to represent the interests of the people, not of whoever pays the politicians' reelection funds. It's corruption. Now if only we could actually persuade the populaton to vote out assholes thsat do this...

      but american idol is far more fun and far less effort.
      • You're correct in American Idol but you seem to be asleep at the wheel... You forgot Paris. Not France, Hilton.
  • Sickening. Genuinely sickening.

    Despite no proven detrimental effect to Canada they have passed laws to restrict behaviour and use tax money to enforce the restrictions, all at the say so of corporate interests.

    This pretty much sums up what I hate about the world right now. Democracy is dead.
  • There's really not much that these new laws will do aside from giving Canadians early screenings again. It'll be good to see movies earlier once more and I'm sure that Pacific Mall will not be put to any real danger by this new act. Yes it's sad that more money and resources are wasted on this futile jesture, but the baby needs it's bottle.
  • by Bullfish (858648) on Tuesday June 12 2007, @08:20AM (#19476741)
    Really. What the industry wanted was a DCMA type act in Canada. They didn't get that and they won't get that. Instead they settled for an anti-camcording law. Not many people will argue that camcording in the theatre is good. Not even the pirates like it, makes for lousy copies. In the end the industry gets a sop, and the government says, okay, we did our bit. It will make no difference to piracy in the end (Canada is not the major source of pirated movies in the world).

    No, cops won't stop doing policing over it. They are certainly not going to drop a car chase or a stakeout to go pick up a kid with a camcorder. That's just silly.

    As for the thin edge of the wedge, the conservatives are not doing well in the polls, and they only managed a minority government last time after catching the liberals in what they billed the scandal of the century. They are not going to be around for much longer anyway. Then we will get the do-nothing liberals, and that's what htey wil do - nothing.
    • Then we will get the do-nothing liberals, and that's what htey wil do - nothing.
      A government that does nothing? Are you really trying to sell them to us?
      • by swordgeek (112599) on Tuesday June 12 2007, @10:01AM (#19477859) Journal
        Well, it's all a measure of evil.

        The liberals will generally do nothing about anything, anytime. The conservatives will screw things up worse and sell out to the US at the drop of a drool-covered hat. The NDP doesn't stand a snowball's chance in hell at getting elected, but if they did, they'd attack business to the extent that the economy would tank. Then there's the Bloc, which should be illegal since they're a regional separatist party dedicated to destroying the country. Ironically, the Green party (which should by definition be a dedicated single-issue party) actually has a very comprehensive and well thought-out platform, but they haven't got a single seat in their history.

        All things considered, doing nothing is not bad. Not good, but not bad.
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      Then we will get the do-nothing liberals, and that's what htey wil do - nothing.

      Well, when I look at the laws created recently, I dunno if a government doing nothing would be such a bad alternative. We have sensible laws in place, so executive and judicative would be enough for my tastes. Generally, when you look around, you only see more and more incredibly insane laws spring up which are either unenforcable or just against the interests of the general population.

      So yes, a government that is unable, unwill
    • by Geof (153857) on Tuesday June 12 2007, @12:19PM (#19479777) Homepage

      What the industry wanted was a DCMA type act in Canada. They didn't get that and they won't get that. Instead they settled for an anti-camcording law.

      I hope you know something I don't. With regards to the anti-camcording bill, the head of the Canadian Motion Picture Distributors Association[2] said [michaelgeist.ca] it "is really the first step - not only for the movie industry - where the government has shown it will seriously address the whole area of intellectual property theft." Reports are [michaelgeist.ca] that the government intends to go ahead with a DMCA-style "reform". Bev Oda, one of the two ministers responsible for copyright, has previously said [blogspot.com] Canada will ratify international treaties, implying that includes the WIPO treaty on which the DMCA is based[1]. The 2007-2008 Report [tbs-sct.gc.ca] on Plans and Priorities lists "copyright reform" as a priority to which the government has "previously committed". Given the

      On the up side, now is not the time to give up: the significant opposition to stronger copyright provisions seems be having an effect. While the RPP's statement on the issue points towards anti-circumvention legislation and a flawed conception of copyright as a simple conflict between creators and consumers (when in fact there are creators on both sides, and citizens and the public interest are directly affected), it avoids committing to any paricular course of action:

      even though technological advances open the way for innovation and renewed creativity, they do bring with them challenges for the arts and cultural community and for government, especially in terms of balancing the rights of creators and consumers. . . . Actions: reforming copyright; . . .

      I wrote to her in January and received a similarly ambiguous reply: "the Government is continuing to consider the concerns of all Canadians . . . The Government wants to ensure that the rights of Canadian creators are adequately protected by law, and that these rights are balanced with the ability of the public to access works."

      [1] I should point out that Canada is under no obligation to ratify the WIPO treaty. Even if we do, the treaty's [wipo.int] anti-circumvention provisions don't require all of the excesses of the DMCA:

      Contracting Parties shall provide adequate legal protection and effective legal remedies against the circumvention of effective technological measures that are used by authors in connection with the exercise of their rights under this Treaty or the Berne Convention and that restrict acts, in respect of their works, which are not authorized by the authors concerned or permitted by law.

      [2] For the most part we don't make Canadian films, we distribute American ones. For the distributors, maximalist intellectual monopoly laws are in their interests even if they inhibit the production of Canadian films.

  • "The second is that private meetings, foreign pressures and lobbyist drafted bills is how law gets made in Canada."

    Isn't politics pretty much like this everywhere though? If politicians don't actually listen to people and take actions (albeit yes they should be able to discriminate between ordinary Joe citizen and a paid lobbyist) - what exactly are they there for?

    The movie industry nievely thinks that having an extra law will reduce the piracy - it won't - even with greater enforcement the pirates will fin
  • Harpers Bizzare (Score:5, Insightful)

    by BillGatesLoveChild (1046184) on Tuesday June 12 2007, @08:25AM (#19476793) Journal
    Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper? Isn't he the guy who, when IDF warplanes killed UN Canadian Peacekeepers said "Well, what were they doing there anyway?"

    Wonder if he's going to give the Canadian people back their CD levies? ($0.29 per unit for Audio Cassette tape (40min or longer); $0.77 per unit for CD-R Audio, CD-RW-Audio & MiniDisc; $0.21 per unit for CD-R, CD-RW (non audio) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_copying_levy [wikipedia.org] )

    Stop voting for people like this. It only encourages them.
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      And who do we vote for? Liberals? They're not in bed with big media companies? Please enlighten me.
      • There's other parties to vote for NDP, Green, etc. Every vote you do make counts and helps those parties to do better in the next election by giving them larger campaign funds.
        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          The problem is, if you're centrist or center-right, there's no party for you, anymore. The conservatives took a hard right after the merger with the Canadian Alliance, and these days the Liberal's are known more for corruption scandals than their political views. Meanwhile, the remaining, notable parties, specifically the NDP and the Green's, are so far to the left there's no way they'll get voted in.

          IMHO, the Canadian political landscape was significantly damaged by the merger of the PC and CA parties.
  • I don't see how camcordering a movie really has any effect on the sales of movie tickets or DVDs of the film. Has anybody actually seen one of these camcordered movies? The quality is terrible. If the MPAA think that this is competing with their product, then they better come up with a new product. Also, wouldn't this already be considered illegal under current copyright laws? Do you really need a specific law against using camcorders to record stuff in theatres? Especially in a way that allows it to
  • by PhysicsPhil (880677) on Tuesday June 12 2007, @08:27AM (#19476821)

    I thought this whole business was remarkably clever of the Canadian government. They managed to sidestep a messy showdown with Hollywood by outlawing something that isn't a problem. Seriously, our movie theatres are not giant igloos, and pirating movies on a camcorder hasn't been an issue for a decade or more (has it ever been?). These days pirated movies usually come from stolen or "borrowed" cinema masters.

    Given the choice between having Hollywood lobbying against something stupid, like a camcorder ban, or something more serious, like a DMCA equivalent, I'd much rather pacify them with the stupid stuff.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      Given the choice between having Hollywood lobbying against something stupid, like a camcorder ban, or something more serious, like a DMCA equivalent, I'd much rather pacify them with the stupid stuff.
      Choice?? Canadian DMCA To Be Introduced This Spring [michaelgeist.ca]!
        • Re:Damn Straight! (Score:4, Insightful)

          by CheeseburgerBrown (553703) on Tuesday June 12 2007, @12:36PM (#19480053) Homepage Journal
          How is listening to foreign lobbyists over your own people and banning something that isn't a problem a "clever move"?

          It is a clever move to toss them a bone rather than having them agitate for your entire skeleton, especially when the bone you toss is meaningless and costs you nothing.

          What inferno? The MPAA can't do jack against another country, and they aren't going to stop releasing movies in Canada if this doesn't pass.

          Did you honestly just say "the MPAA can't do jack against another country" without giggling? Why don't you ask a Swede how they feel about the MPAA's influence in their country? You might come away better informed.

          Canada's exhibitor industry exists only by the leave of the various American movie associations who sell them content. I've been e-mailing back and forth with a friend who works for one of the major studios here, and I can tell you that around their office they're damn thankful at how this turned out because the alternative meant possible industry action, which threatens their paycheques directly (she's in exhibitor relations).

          In this situation, the Americans hold all the cards. They own the movies, and in most cases they own the movie theatres.

          Negotiating with bullies so that they're under the impression you've conceded to their demands when in fact nothing has changed is a clever move. It's called diplomacy, and it works.

  • by flyingfsck (986395) on Tuesday June 12 2007, @08:33AM (#19476875)
    The reason the law passed is because it is useless.

    Provinces are responsible for law enforcement - they'll just ignore it as another idiotic Ottawa publicity stunt.
  • This is the fundamental problem of capitalism: how is democracy possible in the face of huge, rich, powerful corporations that can by-pass any control of the government by the people?
  • by JFMulder (59706) on Tuesday June 12 2007, @08:50AM (#19477061)
    "The second is that private meetings, foreign pressures and lobbyist drafted bills is how law gets made in Canada"
    To which Bush added : "Canada is now officially part of North America"
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        Not that I necessarily agree with your sentiment, but it reminded me of a joke I heard while watching the election coverage up there during the last election (I was living in Western New York at the time and got Canadian stations).

        "What the Canadian people really want are two Liberal parties - one to vote into office when the other becomes too corrupt to governern."
  • by joneil (677771) on Tuesday June 12 2007, @10:24AM (#19478129)
    Almost daily there is news in the GTA (Greater Toronto Area) of crimes, including murder, committed with hand guns. Legally obtaining a handgun in Canada is very difficult (and has been since the mid 1930's), so the vast majority of these hand guns are illegal imports from the USA.

      I wish governments and big business on *both* sides of the border would devote as much attention, time and money to the issue of illegal handgun imports into Canada as they do about movie piracy. I don't know about the rest of you people, but I am a lot more afraid of somebody walking into a local movie theatre here in Canada with an illegal handgun than an illegal camcorder. Are movies worth more than lives anymore?

              The other issue to me, one that Hollywood & the studios and others never address, is that for me and my family (two adults, two children) to go see a movie in a theatre today, with admission, parking, car gas, popcorn, drinks, etc, etc, I'll spend at least $100. I don't have that kind of money to go as often as I would like too. Sorry Hollywood, but this month the car needed fixing and the kids needed dental work. I am sure most of you have similar stories. I am also pretty peaved that the very fews times I do go to a movie theatre, I have to sit through several minutes of commercials for an event I PAY to attend. This turns me off completely. Are you guys litening out there? :(

            But I will and do buy DVDs.

          With everybody buying larger and larger TVs, home theatre systems, etc, etc, why not release DVDs of new movies at the same time as they are released in theatres? I imagine you would kill off a lot of piracy right there and then. I don't have the big screen LCD TV myself (yet), but someday when I do, I'd rather stay home and watch movies in the comfort of my own house.

      Movie distribution today is bascially a very flawed business model due to many factors, including some of those listed above,a nd trying to place the blame on piracy will do nothing to help. Wake up and smell the coffee.

  • by sirwired (27582) on Tuesday June 12 2007, @10:39AM (#19478309)
    I have no problem with lobbying groups supplying draft legislation. It is better that legislation be written by somebody that has knowledge of the topic in question rather than a lawmaker just pulling it out of his ass. I believe that most bills affecting the private sector do come from lobbying groups of some sort.

    That doesn't mean that this law was in any way useful or good (it isn't), but the fact that it was written by a lobbyist is not inherently evil. If the FSF had pushed for a bill requiring the govt. to consider Free Software for all procurement purchases over $X, I don't think Slashdot would be screaming.

    Of course, that does not absolve lawmakers from their responsibility to look over any proposed legislation and suggest it be modified or tanked...

    SirWired
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        I find it funny that celibs think that because the can sing a song or make a movie, their opinion is more important than the opinion of other people...Bono is hypocritical when he expects governments to increase their AIDS funding to Africa and continue down the road of debt forgiveness using tax payer money when he moves his business out of Ireland because he was paying too much tax...I am getting very tired of being told what I should think and feel from people who just happen to be an entertainer!!!! GR
    • It's not that everyone thinks it should be OK to videotape movies, it's that the law is completely unreasonable. First, it's been bought and paid for by Hollywood from day one with inconsistent and laughably bad data. Second, the laws are already in place to stop it, what these laws do is make the penalties completely unreasonable. $2 million for videotaping a movie? That's ridiculous. Third, the laws have proven to be completely useless everywhere else. Finally, the biggest source of piracy isn't camcorder