Police Charge Man in Movie Camming Crackdown
Written by enigmax on November 15, 2007A man from Quebec has become one of the first to be charged under Canada’s new anti-camcording legislation after being caught trying to record the movie ‘Dan in Real Life’. The man - who intended to upload the movie to the internet - faces up to 2 years in jail.
Back in June, Canada adopted legislation which would see greater punishments for people caught camcording movies in theaters. The amendment to Bill C-59 stated in part that any person caught recording a movie in a theater without permission would be guilty of an indictable offense - and liable to be imprisoned for up to two years.
According to reports, October 2007 saw the arrest of a 23 year old man, allegedly caught trying to record or ‘cam’ the new movie, ‘Dan in Real Life‘. He was also in possession of equipment to directly upload the movie to the internet and was likely to have been apprehended by police and theater staff wearing night vision goggles.
The man from Quebec is among the first to be charged under the new legislation which, according to Slyck.com, was rushed through in record time after intense lobbying by the MPAA in the United States.
If convicted, the man faces up to two years in jail. However, should his actions be considered part of a commercial operation, the term jumps to five years and could include forfeiture of assets.
Previously: Comcast Sued Over BitTorrent Traffic Interference
Next: Leaseweb Forced To Shut Down More BitTorrent Sites
93 Responses
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 » Show All
that’s gay.
im gonna get night vision goggles and attacked movie employees wearing night vision goggles… or just shine a laser in the goggles that would look like the sun to them.
A) What an idiot, didn’t he get the news ?
B) This was a PRO or at least a “wannabe PRO”, not some teen recording a movie sequece with hit mobile phone for a sibling.
C) Cams suck anyway.
2 years in jail is bullshit. He didn’t hurt anybody, and this is NOT that serious of a crime.
[quote]He was also in possession of equipment to directly upload the movie to the internet[/quote]
Oh no, let’s charge him for owning a router
It’s funny when you know in Québec a drunk driver only gets 2 years minus one day.
[quote comment="214314"][quote]He was also in possession of equipment to directly upload the movie to the internet[/quote]
Oh no, let’s charge him for owning a router[/quote]
lol i wouldnt be suprized
again.. break their legs and arms off, less crime then showing your experiences to friends..
This is completely ridiculous! Big corporation buying laws again - the only harm done is *possibly* to the pocket of the MPAA. How can it warrant jail time?
all you need to do is get the permission of your best friend the theatre manager and no one can get in trouble. any theatre managers out there who wanna let me cam a movie(preferrably in scarborough at 401 & morningside).
feel sorry for the guy. what makes it worse is that cams really do suck. just wait for dvd! infinitely better quality.
I think someone was just looking for an easy excuse to bust out the night vision goggles.
Seriously, the time and money spent prosecuting this shit is what’s criminal. Are we not yet making enough millions at the box office?
really? 2 years for camming a movie? I’m sorry, but fine the idiot, jailtime is just counterproductive, not to mention wasting jailspace.
First offence? The guy will get a $50 fine, if anything. If convicted it is UP to 2 years. It is not an automatic sentence like in the US. Most likely, the Crown Attorney will drop the charges. Our courts are so overcrowded that it will take two years before going to trial. There are more dangerous criminals out there that need dealing with and shit like this is quietly dropped.
I am sorry the guy was caught. It really is not that big deal. He is clearly not guilty of a criminal offense, Geez, no one was hurt! Again, as said Above, the only thing maybe hurt would be the corporate cash flow. BUT, due to the MPAA’s constant lobbying efforts, and HUGE payoffs to America’s spineless, bought off Senators, it is now a CRIMINAL offense to even REMOTELY attack a corporations most precious in the world (And than ain’t you or me friend) $ MONEY. This is truly insane. I feel sorry for the guy, he is only 23. I can see a WHITE collar crime here.
Okay so seriously, night vision goggles? hahaha
m3 1s m0v13 c0mp4n33 4nd m3 w4nt G33 P33!!!!!!!!!!11!@
Sorry, had to say that. :)
It makes PERFECT sense that the courts are busying themself with things like this instead of solving some REAL problems or trying to catch oh… I don’t know… serial killers? How about rapists? CHild abusers even? But no, movies need their gee pee too badly.
IT’S SHINY TOO!
lol wow that is funny
what does it mean
“He was also in possession of equipment to directly upload the movie to the internet”
from the movie theater? wow, if so, thats pretty cool
The fact that the Bill C-59, only talks about recording movies and/or the soundtracks to movies. Why only movies??? I realize the MPAA only gives a shit about cinematographic works but I would have thought the Senate would have cared other kinds of work as well.
Anyway the bill says if caught up to two years or a summary offense (fine). If caught trying to make money off of what you recorded it could be up to 5 years of imprisonment. Plus in both cases any equipment found will or can be disposed off.
Not cool.
I don’t mind this type of news. All can agree cams suck, so why bother even considering them? I am actually glad to see something is done with camming, less crap being uploaded on the net.
However, the punishment for the camming with the new legislation is not good. 2 years, in my view, it was long for doing it with no intention of getting money off of it. And 5 years for getting money off it, that can be debated, but I also think that is too long.
*puts on flame suit to protect self from idiots*
wtf thats dumb…like others have said, the courts, especially here in canada are over crowded since they spend time on crimes like this…what about the murderers that are on our streets?
it cost 80 000$ each year for 1 prisoner… he is not a danger for anyone, this is bullshit
some idiots killed a 3yr old girl doing street racing there is like 2weeks, and im sure they wont go in jail
Corporations today own the government, and now get the governement to use their resources to derail anything that might cause a loss of corporate profit, no matter how insignificant. Its shameful that this “crime” is punished as seriously as drunk driving which will cause loss of life. Of course, the only thing corporations care about is loss of profit.
So how does this change? Since governments are basically owned by big business, what motive is there to stop this applying outrageous punitive damages on insignificant crimes?
It used to be (back in the old days)… that copyright infringement only allowed for COMPENSATORY damages, in that the copyright holder could bring CIVIL action and sue for loss of income. If it could be proven that it lead to the loss of 4 copies of a DVD, the copyright holder could sue for the cost of those DVDs. This makes perfect sense.
However, now they have placed horrendous, unimaginable PUNITIVE damages to copyright infringement. I believe they can now charge 500,000 dollars per movie. This should be considered “cruel and unusual punishment” and not allowed. But since the governement, judicial and legislative in the US is owned by corporations, all laws and enforcement today are to protect the profits of the corporations.
This is wrong. There is no way on earth this HURT someone. Intention to do wrong should in no way be illegal.
gay
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 » Show All
Responses are closed
All remaining responses will continue to be archived. Use the TorrentFreak forums if you want to discuss something.