Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Canadian Movie Piracy Claims Mostly Fiction?

ScuttleMonkey posted more than 7 years ago | from the i-never-would-have-guessed dept.

Movies 151

Justin Primus writes "Michael Geist's weekly column dismantles recent claims that Canada is the world's leading movie piracy haven. The article uses the industry's own data to demonstrate that the assertions about movie bootlegging and its economic impact are greatly exaggerated and that the MPAA's arguments about Canadian copyright law are misleading. I particularly liked how Geist dug up the fact that the MPAA itself says that there have only been 179 movies recorded with a camcorder over the past three years out of the 1,400 that the Hollywood studios released."

cancel ×

151 comments

Mostly? (4, Funny)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | more than 7 years ago | (#17892282)

The true part: "There is a nation, it is called Canada."

Re:Mostly? (5, Funny)

Lev13than (581686) | more than 7 years ago | (#17892610)

The true part: "There is a nation, it is called Canada."

Not so fast - them's fighting words... You need to know that within the Nation of Canada there's also the Nation of Quebec and the hundred or so First Nations. Then there's the Nunavut Territory, which is actually the Innu Nation. And don't forget the province of Newfoundland and Labrador, which was a Sovereign Nation until it grudgingly allowed the rest of Canada to join them in 1949 (and is still embroiled in a territorial dispute with the Nation of Quebec). Of course, now that we're down this path we're going to have to deal with the Metis Nation, the Acadian Nation and who knows what else. Eventually we'll reach the point where we have to recognize the Nation of the Borough of East York.

In short, the whole "Nation" thing is a bit messy up here, so it's really better for everyone if you just don't bring it up. To avoid similar confusion in the future, I suggest you go with the universally accepted moniker of "The 51st State".

Re:Mostly? (1)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | more than 7 years ago | (#17892738)

Ha!

Reminds me of John Candy's quip that he wasn't really sure if Canada had produced more famous comedians than any other state.

Thanks - you have now supplemented Barbara Budd as my primary source on the Dilemma Canadienes.

Re:Mostly? (1)

HardCorePawn (944227) | more than 7 years ago | (#17893752)

To avoid similar confusion in the future, I suggest you go with the universally accepted moniker of "The 51st State".
Oh... I thought that was Australia... aka Mini-America

Re:Mostly? (2, Informative)

twig_nl (906935) | more than 7 years ago | (#17893968)

Then there's the Nunavut Territory, which is actually the Innu Nation.

Actually, that would be the Inuit. The Innu nation is in Labrador (where the Inuit live too, but farther north and on the coast).

Re:Mostly? (1)

swight1701 (257154) | more than 7 years ago | (#17893970)

Lard tundering jaysus! Don't be talking about us Newfie's!

hehehe You're post just proves our biggest difference. We are a cultural mosaic, and not the melting pot that happens when you go further south.

Re:Mostly? (1)

Five Bucks! (769277) | more than 7 years ago | (#17894424)

Lord Liftin'!

Ya gots ta be more careful wit' yer h'Apostrophies. You should head into town and get some proper learnin' :p

Re:Mostly? (1)

c (8461) | more than 7 years ago | (#17894386)

The sad part is that you got modded as "Funny".

c.

Re:Mostly? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17894454)

In short, the whole "Nation" thing is a bit messy up here, so it's really better for everyone if you just don't bring it up. To avoid similar confusion in the future, I suggest you go with the universally accepted moniker of "The 51st State".

I prefer "America Jr"

Re:Mostly? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17894512)

them's fighting words dude

1) Nunavut is the Inuit Nation, the Innu are in Labrador

2) Newfoundland and Labrador was not a soverign nation prior to joining Canada. It was a British Colony. And the Labrador portion of it was not the current borders but was a much narower strip up the east cost of the Canadian mainland.

3) Depending on who you talk to, the Metis are not true indians

Shall we go on. :P

Anonymous A**hole

You parsed it wrong (1)

spun (1352) | more than 7 years ago | (#17892820)

It's actually "claim" as in "Fire claims 12 victims." They are saying that Canadians mostly pirate fiction, as opposed to documentaries.

So... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17893220)

Where are the "yes" and "duh" tags? :-)

One Bad Joke (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17892290)

Canadian Movie Piracy Claims Mostly Fiction?
Aren't most movies fiction anyways? I mean, who cares if they're pirating fictitious or documentary films?

Broken Record (4, Insightful)

Doc Ruby (173196) | more than 7 years ago | (#17892306)

Why does anyone believe these unaccountable, selfserving "stats" released by the notoriously lying, litigious, abusive RIAA? We don't make gas mileage requirements taking oil companies' reports as gospel, except when "we" are really screwing "ourselves".

Re:Broken Record (4, Funny)

Austerity Empowers (669817) | more than 7 years ago | (#17892494)

And why anyone would want a movie that was taped in a theater on a camcorder is beyond me. That sound wasn't the orcs coming from deep within the mountain, it was your feet sticking to the floor..

Re:Broken Record (1)

edwardpickman (965122) | more than 7 years ago | (#17892798)

And why anyone would want a movie that was taped in a theater on a camcorder is beyond me. That sound wasn't the orcs coming from deep within the mountain, it was your feet sticking to the floor..

And the Hobbits sound like teenage girls and I didn't realize Middle Earth had cell phones.

Re:Broken Record (1)

Maxo-Texas (864189) | more than 7 years ago | (#17893180)

My first was in 1988- Logan's run in a secret back room at "Spectrum Con" in Houston at a hotel that no longer exists. It was VHS, it was noisy- and it was very cool for the 20 to 30 of us that shared the experience.

Re:Broken Record (1)

dan828 (753380) | more than 7 years ago | (#17893812)

It's for that "theater experience" that you normally miss out on with an ordinary DVD. Now just throw in some $5 popcorn, and you'd have no reason to go to the movies. That's what the RIAA is protecting!

Re:Broken Record (1)

Farmer Tim (530755) | more than 7 years ago | (#17893326)

Just nitpicking, but these unaccountable, self-serving stats were releases by the notoriously lying, litigious, abusive MPAA.

Re:Broken Record (1)

Doc Ruby (173196) | more than 7 years ago | (#17893478)

Nit picked. The distinction without a difference just reinforces the facts about these content cartels, without limit to a specific medium. If books were still popular, I might have mistakenly typed the BPAA (imaginary Book Publishers Association of America).

Re:Broken Record (2, Informative)

AJWM (19027) | more than 7 years ago | (#17894002)

If books were still popular, I might have mistakenly typed the BPAA (imaginary Book Publishers Association of America).

That would probably be the ABA, the American Booksellers Association. They intimidate even the publishers. (In how many other industries can the retailer get a refund on units ordered just by ripping off the cover (boxtop, whatever) and sending that back?) Not that all publishers are saints (some are, but the bigger houses tend to be like corporations everywhere).

And books are still popular. Readership statistics really haven't changed much in the last hundred or so years. Distribution models -- as with other industries -- are a mess, though.

Re:Broken Record (1)

Farmer Tim (530755) | more than 7 years ago | (#17894502)

I'm not disputing for an instant that there's negligable real difference between the two industry groups, if only because the member companies they represent are mostly the same. In my view its one of many arguments in favour of laws lmiting cross-media ownership, but I don't expect to see any politician with the principles to take a stand on this issue any more than copyright reform.

Re:Broken Record (1)

iphayd (170761) | more than 7 years ago | (#17893856)

Nah, the 50th state. We don't accept Texas anymore.

Re:Broken Record (1)

Synchis (191050) | more than 7 years ago | (#17894422)

I agree. I've looked at the stats, and figure in my own personal dealings with purchased movies...

Pre-DVD's, I bought exactly *2* VHS movies.

Once I owned a DVD player, I actually bought *more* movies than I ever had before. Sure, I might make a "Personal Copy" of a few too, but the point is, when I really like a movie, when its *worth* buying, I actually buy it.

Oh yeah... and I'm Canadian. :P

eh? (2, Interesting)

TinBromide (921574) | more than 7 years ago | (#17892320)

So the piracy claims about canada are mostly fiction, how is this different than the opinion* most piracy claims made in north america?

*I say opinion because there are no facts about piracy beyond the fact that it does happen, and it may or may not be good for the industry depending on who you ask.

Re:eh? (0, Flamebait)

$RANDOMLUSER (804576) | more than 7 years ago | (#17893072)

Don't deny it. You know it's the Canadians. They're in it with the Scientologists. And the Freemasons. And the Trilateral Commission. And the Teletubbies. God, I hate those little purple faggots.

Re:eh? (1)

dargon (105684) | more than 7 years ago | (#17893888)

Please, in the future, get your facts straight. We want nothing to do with the scientologists and would love to crate them all up and ship them back to hippie land, aka California.

Re:eh? (1)

skoaldipper (752281) | more than 7 years ago | (#17893374)

So the piracy claims about canada are mostly fiction, how is this different than the opinion* most piracy claims made in north america?
Because most Americans haven't lived in China? I have, and you can pick up the latest DVD of any movie before it's even released in the theaters in America. And for 4 to 5 RMB (or about 50 cents), most are not even camcorder shots but exact rips. I don't know how they do it, but they do. And in China, they stand alongside their wooden carts on the street corner selling them. Ha! Beat that Canada!

proof! (5, Funny)

geedra (1009933) | more than 7 years ago | (#17892344)

there have only been 179 movies recorded with a camcorder over the past three years out of the 1,400 that the Hollywood studios released
..confirming that less than 13% of their crap is worth watching.

Re:proof! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17892428)

Or that rest were DVDrips... Look at most of new titles on BitTorrent.

Re:proof! (2, Insightful)

thebigbluecheez (1010821) | more than 7 years ago | (#17892526)

Well, that and the fact that you have to pay to camcorder the movie. Isn't that kind of against the whole idea of pirating?

Re:proof! (1)

stanmann (602645) | more than 7 years ago | (#17893262)

WRONG!

Most *watchable* cams are recorded by employees in empty theatres.

Re:proof! (2, Interesting)

davecb (6526) | more than 7 years ago | (#17894146)

When camcorders first came out, a school friend's father set up a tripod in the projection room and taped a lovely copy of a then-popular movie. You could barely hear a low whir in the background from the projector...

Can't get more "inside" than that.

--dave

Re:proof! (0, Redundant)

LordEd (840443) | more than 7 years ago | (#17893032)

I think its better proof that 87% of their crap isn't even worth stealing.

Re:proof! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17894338)

The other 87% were actually available on BT as a screener or dvdrip before the movie even came to cinema...

Probably the most successful 13% (2, Insightful)

Geof (153857) | more than 7 years ago | (#17894596)

The movie industry, like the music industry, releases a large number of movies, but makes most of the money from a small number of hits. Since pirates will tend to target the most popular films, that 13% of films probably represents the majority of revenues and profits.

Of course, it's very difficult to determine just how much loss the existence of pirate versions of those films represents to the industry. It might be significant; it might be quite small. The MPAA hardly has a record of being honest in its assessments. How many in-theater pirated DVDs of Hollywood films do Slashdotters have? Are you folks aware of many other people with pirated DVDs? I bet it's not many, though I also suspect Slashdot's (often young, male, with disposable income, tech and pop culture savy) population is a prime target for both Hollywood and pirates. How many Thais (say) would have bought the $20 DVD if there were no pirated version? I bet that's not so many either.

Flawed Stats (3, Informative)

bendodge (998616) | more than 7 years ago | (#17892374)

Take any statistics an entity comes up with to help itself with a grain of salt, and then ask for the raw data and methods, so that you can reproduce the results. If they can't give you the data for privacy reasons, at least look at the samples and methods.

Basically, don't trust in-house statistics, unless you can reproduce the results yourself.

Re:Flawed Stats (4, Insightful)

Jesus_666 (702802) | more than 7 years ago | (#17894296)

You: Can I have your raw data and methods please?
MPAA: No, because of privacy concerns.
You: Ah, well, then you can surely give me the samples you worked with?
MPAA: No, those are private as well. As are our methods.
You: Can I at least see the results?
MPAA: No, those are especially private.
You: Well, what can you give me?
MPAA: Nothing. There never was a statistic. These are not the droids you are looking for. We're not here. *hides behind a tree*

Re:Flawed Stats (1)

ebvwfbw (864834) | more than 7 years ago | (#17894626)

Basically, don't trust in-house statistics, unless you can reproduce the results yourself.

Most people out there are simply not qualified to do statistics and they think they are. Turns out that most people don't even know how to count as anyone that has taken a discrete mathematics course would know. So verifying the results in all but a trivial case isn't possible for most people. For those of us who could do it, the data is often not available (intentionally). If it is available and we try to tell other people about the misrepresentation, we often get mud slung at us. They don't want their misrepresentation (some would say "lie") exposed. This is especially true with political items.

Activists are famous for restricting the universe of possibilities to make a point and show a big problem. For example they may say 78% of the people are against what (your leader, whoever that is) is doing. What they don't tell you is the group of people they asked are opponents of (your leader) and not a representative sampling. One polling firm that it would be good to make them prove their results is AP/IPSOS.

Shrink rate (4, Insightful)

Skadet (528657) | more than 7 years ago | (#17892406)

I'll probably get modded down for this, but. . . .

I particularly liked how Geist dug up the fact that the MPAA itself says that there have only been 179 movies recorded with a camcorder over the past three years out of the 1,400 that the Hollywood studios released."
You can't be serious. That's 11% of theatrical releases! Could you imagine if a retail store had an 11% shrink rate? (Hint for those unfamiliar with retail: 11% is head-rolling territory).

Look, I disagree with the RIAA as much as the next /.'er. But this statistic simply doesn't prove what the author was hoping to prove.

Re:Shrink rate (2, Insightful)

garcia (6573) | more than 7 years ago | (#17892566)

And those are the least downloaded I'm sure. I, for one, completely ignore CAM versions and either wait for DVD or the "better" release that's ripped from some other source (usually DVD).

I don't bother to pirate much anymore because their DVD release schedules are so fast -- but if someone does need to be seen I certainly wouldn't bother with a 700MB CAM.

Re:Shrink rate (1)

vhogemann (797994) | more than 7 years ago | (#17893692)

Actually,

I guess nowdays most of the film downloads are from series such as Lost, Heroes, etc... Who would bother to download an entire DVD when is so much easier to rent one, and them rip it?

And, yet again... why rip it when is soooo much easier to rent it again?

Re:Shrink rate (1)

Jesus_666 (702802) | more than 7 years ago | (#17894218)

Rerenting a movie:
1. Drive to store
2. Locate movie
3. Rent it
4. Drive home
5. Watch movie
6. Return movie and pay

Watching a ripped movie:
1. Start media PC/XBMC
2. Start media player/navigate to "Video"
3. Navigate to movie file and open it
4. Watch movie
5. Shut down media PC/XBox


Watching the ripped movie saves you two drives and some time - I think that is an advantage.

And how many in Canada? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17892582)

They asserted 50% movie piracy by camcorders in Canada.

The total FOR THE WORLD piracy rate is 11% OF THEATRICAL RELEASES according to the MPAAs own numbers.

Also just because 11% of the worldwide movies are camcordered doesn't mean they lost 11% of their movie revenues. So it's not even wastage. How did Star War do? It was heavily camcordered in the 1980's.

Re:Shrink rate (1)

Gr8Apes (679165) | more than 7 years ago | (#17892612)

You can't be serious. That's 11% of theatrical releases! Could you imagine if a retail store had an 11% shrink rate? (Hint for those unfamiliar with retail: 11% is head-rolling territory).

Look, I disagree with the RIAA as much as the next /.'er. But this statistic simply doesn't prove what the author was hoping to prove.
Actually - that's an 11% attempted rate. What does it really mean? Seriously?

So 11% of the movies were taped with a camcorder. Ok, fine. What happened after that? They had a whole 10 people download it before word got out it sucked horrendous road kill?

Re:Shrink rate (1)

Skadet (528657) | more than 7 years ago | (#17892782)

So 11% of the movies were taped with a camcorder. Ok, fine. What happened after that? They had a whole 10 people download it before word got out it sucked horrendous road kill?
I understand your point, but I think the argument here is that we don't know what happened after the movie was taped, and we never will.

Re:Shrink rate (1)

Gr8Apes (679165) | more than 7 years ago | (#17892980)

So, then, do we really know the movie was taped?

Re:Shrink rate (4, Insightful)

digidave (259925) | more than 7 years ago | (#17892666)

That's not necessarily 11%.

Where does the number 179 come from? Is that the number of arrests made? If so, then that's 179 out of however many million Canadians went to see those 1400 movies. Or maybe that's 179 releases made from camcorders in Canadian theatres, in which case all 179 might have come from one person or a small group of people. Maybe 179 incidents only accounts for ten movies with multiple recording attemps done for those movies.

It's like if you analyzed a large chain store and found that 11% of all the individual items they sold were stolen somewhere within the chain. Maybe only one of each item was stolen, meaning on average less than one per store, but somehow you end up with a bogus 11% shrink rate because you don't know how to work the numbers properly (or because you do and you are dishonest).

Re:Shrink rate (2, Informative)

bcattwoo (737354) | more than 7 years ago | (#17893146)

That's not necessarily 11%.

Where does the number 179 come from? Is that the number of arrests made? If so, then that's 179 out of however many million Canadians went to see those 1400 movies. Or maybe that's 179 releases made from camcorders in Canadian theatres, in which case all 179 might have come from one person or a small group of people. Maybe 179 incidents only accounts for ten movies with multiple recording attemps done for those movies.
Rather than speculating, you can just read the cited document(I know wild speculation is more fun):

"MPAA analysis of counterfeit copies of recently released movies on DVD seized throughout the world reveals that more than 90 percent can be sourced back to theatrical camcording. As of August 2006, MPAA had documented 179 member company titles that had been stolen in this manner since 2004, providing the source copies for pirate DVDs discovered in the markets of 46 other countries on every inhabited continent."

Re:Shrink rate (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17893246)

The issue was with the comparison of 11% of movies are pirated to an 11% shrinkage rate in a store. Claiming it's a fair comparison is claiming that if some kid pockets a snickers bar, the store gets to write off their entire snicker inventory as stolen.

Re:Shrink rate (1)

stanmann (602645) | more than 7 years ago | (#17893430)

Yes, but we're talking about digital media which once in the wild can be copied indefinitely.

Re:Shrink rate (1)

Fred_A (10934) | more than 7 years ago | (#17894214)

"MPAA analysis of counterfeit copies of recently released movies on DVD seized throughout the world reveals that more than 90 percent can be sourced back to theatrical camcording.
Actually I didn't get that bit. *Why* would anyone bother distributing a camera capture ? Just to beat the DVD release ? The DVD release local to wherever the movie is from usually follows the theatre release quite quickly. Creating copies from that ought to yield far better quality. Stripping the zoning shouldn't be that hard (I never looked at how that was implemented, but I don't think it's in the data itself).

OTOH of course, once you've heard the way the russians do their dubbing (basically one or two guys doing a voice-over in an even monocorde with no regard for the sex of the actors or their acting), you're ready for anything. :)

I'll be watching for YOU, Skadet (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17893054)

I'll probably get modded down for this, but. . . .
The very next time I have mod points ... you're going down!

Re:I'll be watching for YOU, Skadet (1)

skoaldipper (752281) | more than 7 years ago | (#17893438)

Mod me down instead. Skadet makes a good point, whereas I am completely incoherent at times. Thanks in advance.

Re:Shrink rate (2, Insightful)

tinkerghost (944862) | more than 7 years ago | (#17893096)

You're using the wrong ratio. 11% shrink isn't what they are talking about. They are talking about only 11% of the products on the shelves - in all of the stores - was stolen by camming.
In retail you're talking more along the lines of saying - "OK this year we've had 3% shrinkage, of that 80% was by shoplifting and 20% was credit/check fraud. Looking into the fraud, we can see that only 11% of the products we stock are ever stolen by fraud." This should be followed by the question "WTF is wrong with the rest of our crap that it's not even worth stealing"

"Stealing" (2, Interesting)

Mariner28 (814350) | more than 7 years ago | (#17893624)

I have a hard time with the MPAA's and the RIAA's use of the term stealing. If I steal something from you, I deprive you of its use. When someone "pirates" something of yours, they deprive you of some potential revenue - quite a different scenario than "stealing".

And when someone tries to equate 11% of 1400 theater releases being filmed by camcorder-wielding pirates to an 11% shrink rate, well that's called FUD . Now, if the box-office receipts of 179 theaters were stolen by thieves - that I'd call an 11% shrink rate!!!

Re:Shrink rate (1)

Jeff DeMaagd (2015) | more than 7 years ago | (#17893520)

I really don't think the analogy fits. For one, retail of a physical product is not the same as a file. Also, one camcorder copy doesn't mean that the movie is gone. The closest equivalent is 11% would represent if each of the ~150 titles had one copy out of a million illegally taken. So the shrink rate might be closer to .00001%.

Re:Shrink rate (2, Informative)

Frenchy_2001 (659163) | more than 7 years ago | (#17893862)

The author makes his point perfectly, although the summary does not make it quite clear.
99% of the movies that are released get pirated. Out of all those pirated movies, only 11% are from bad cam recording. The rest are mostly DVD rips a bit later, DVD rips of advance projection or review copies or again for oscar nominations.

The author point is not that few movies are pirated (as stated, most movies are already available in pirated form), but that the camcording in the movie theater is a marginal form (mostly because of the dreadful results it gives). Most pirated movies are internal leaks.

Re:Shrink rate (3, Insightful)

AJWM (19027) | more than 7 years ago | (#17894092)

That's 11% of theatrical releases! Could you imagine if a retail store had an 11% shrink rate?

Faulty comparison. For that to be valid, then after somebody camcords a movie, nobody pays ticket price any more. Taking something off a retail store shelf makes that particular item unavailable for anyone else to buy, so it is a real loss. A cam copy may cut in to movie ticket sales slightly, but it doesn't make the movie no longer available in the theatre.

You'd have a somewhat better comparison (although still flawed) if pirates were holding up the theatres and stealing the reels of film.

Re:Shrink rate (1)

EtherealStrife (724374) | more than 7 years ago | (#17894176)

BS. The problem with shrink is the actual removal of something, which this is not. If you want to go with the retail shrink metaphor, then this is more along the lines of an OfficeMax opening up across the street from OfficeDepot. OfficeMax says that it will be giving away free merchandise, but they will only carry 11% of the items that OfficeDepot stocks and all of the free items will be of shoddy quality (barely usable...we're talking 1-ply tp here that is made out of poison oak leaves). OfficeDepot may see a drop in sales, but at the MOST it could be an 11% drop, since 89% is exclusive to OfficeDepot. And of the potential 11%, only incredibly cheap people (within that 11%) would go to OfficeMax. These are the types who probably would have skipped buying the item from OfficeDepot if they didn't have a free alternative.

Net result, minimal loss.

The "hurt" area for the MPAA is in DVDrips. Most movies are being ripped at or before their dvd release date, in DVD quality. When something like 90% of your stock is being offered for free and is of the same quality, there is potential for a serious problem. But this does not have any real bearing on box office sales and camcorder "rips" of movies, nor does it have anything to do with shrink. Shrink for DVD sales occurs in the physical sense, and is a completely separate matter from online piracy.

Re:Shrink rate (1)

smaddox (928261) | more than 7 years ago | (#17894248)

They don't get paid a certain amount of money per movie, though. They get paid per admission. Just because 11% of the movies were recorded on camcorder, doesn't mean the drop in sales was 11%. If you factor in the number of people who saw the CAM version, and the number of those people who would have paid to see it, but didn't have to - the loss in revenue is negligible.

Re:Shrink rate (1)

Battle_Ratt (524562) | more than 7 years ago | (#17894608)

Yea an 11% shrink rate would be head-rolling territory.

You can not however equate a camcorder rip to retail shrink. That would be similar to saying that someone taking a singe gummy bear out of the bulk bin at the grocery store cost the store the value of the entire bin.

A more honest approach, if it was possible, would be to count how many times one of these copies was downloaded by someone who never ended up paying to see the show, vs every single ticket sold, and every single DVD sold, of the entire production.

If that number was anywhere near even 1% I would be surprised.

Hmm.... (1)

8127972 (73495) | more than 7 years ago | (#17892422)

"Canadian Movie Piracy Claims Mostly Fiction?"

Sounds like some Hollywood script writers are working for the MPAA.

Re:Hmm.... (1)

sconeu (64226) | more than 7 years ago | (#17893422)

Yeah, but the MPAA claims will never make a profit (on paper), so the writers won't get paid.

Re:Hmm.... (1)

skoaldipper (752281) | more than 7 years ago | (#17893762)

Michael Moore already has it in post production; to be released in Summer 2007. In one scene, Jack Valenti dressed in black overcoat and shades is seen purchasing Snakes on a Plane in Ontario.

In Memoriam... (1)

F-3582 (996772) | more than 7 years ago | (#17892424)

...Scott R.:

Let's not let the FACTS get in the way of our substantial gains.

The reality is... (4, Insightful)

Bullfish (858648) | more than 7 years ago | (#17892440)

The MPAA knows the claim is bogus... like the RIAA lobbying to try to alter Canada's copyright provisions to suit them, this is just trying to sow seeds to try to get the copyright laws changed to suit the MPAA. Seriously, anyone who does download movies knows the camcorder rips are the worst of the lot... it's the studio prints that are desireable... and where do those come from?... It's all just PR (or propaganda if you will) designed to try to further their aims... and to borrow a line from another topic... this ploy is not intelligently designed...

You want to know why ticket sales are down... Ask yourself this...What is the last movies that you just had to see?

Re:The reality is... (2, Insightful)

Aladrin (926209) | more than 7 years ago | (#17892740)

"What is the last movies that you just had to see?"

Unfortunately, there HAVE been a few movies in the past few years that I just -had- to see. As many as when I was a kid, and I -know- I was less picky when I was a kid. A few that I remember off the top of my head:

Star Wars Ep 1 (2 was a must-see, but disappointed.)
Epic Movie (Yeah, that was just last week)
Aeon Flux
War of the Worlds
Signs
Lady in the Water

And I'm sure there were quite a few others, as I avidly looked forward to going to the movie theatre about every 3rd or 4th week. (The other weeks, we went anyhow but not because we -had- to see that particular movie.)

So actually, there's been plenty worth watching to at least some of us. If you found nothing good, perhaps you should find another source of entertainment, instead. Don't use it as an excuse to download movies without paying for them. (Not accusing you, I mean that in general.)

Re:The reality is... (1)

Floritard (1058660) | more than 7 years ago | (#17893118)

not trying to flame here, but how did you feel after seeing the movies on that list of yours, and how does that affect the current discussion on Hollywood's product quality of late? Epic Movie? sheesh...

Re:The reality is... (3, Funny)

Knara (9377) | more than 7 years ago | (#17893500)

So what I'm getting here is that you frequently need to see shitty movies?

Re:The reality is... (1)

skoaldipper (752281) | more than 7 years ago | (#17894016)

Ever seen a chick flick before? It's something we must all endure from time to time as men. My secret? Just grab yourself some skoal and a courtesy cup at the popcorn shop. It really helps you focus on Julia Roberts features, while "pookems" sitting next to you is heavily engrossed in the dialog. Important Tip: read reviews on imdb or rottentomatoes beforehand. That way, like cliff notes, you can add some quick insight when "pookems" picks your brain about the movie later.

Re:The reality is... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17894446)

War of the Worlds? When you watch War of the Worlds, you support Tom Cruise, and when you support Tom, you support Scientology! Free Keith Henson! [slashdot.org]

Re:The reality is... (1)

Kandenshi (832555) | more than 7 years ago | (#17894518)

Not trying(very hard) to flame here, but how did you feel after watching Signs [imdb.com] ?

I mean, SIGNS?! I got conned into seeing that by a pair of old friends who were visiting town and wanted to go out to the movies... Hell, Signs was very nearly enough to ruin movies for me. I needed to watch a bunch of real classics to get my love for film back after that. It was an abortion of creativity and intelligence. Only uglier and smelled worse.

Re:The reality is... (1)

mrbcs (737902) | more than 7 years ago | (#17893098)

Exactly! We had an article here a while back about this issue. I sent an email off to my MP about my concerns. I was actually quite shocked when they sent me back a letter informing me that my concerns will be brought up with the Minister in charge.

My MP also informed me that he would like more information when the Minister Responsible For This Mess replies to our initial inquiry.

Democracy might not be dead yet in Canada...

Re:The reality is... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17893208)

Unfortunately, we have Dubya Junior (or more aptly: Dubya's little doggie) as primer minister. So consider this a successful move to rape Canadian's rights.

The media (I wonder who paid them off) made this huge scandal about the sponsorship boondogle. That, of course, was a poor government program, but basically those who diverted funds were a couple of public servants and private publicity companies that didn't do what they were paid for. The total cost of the program 200 000 000$ (CDN). The only figure of the money diverted that I've ever heard coming out of the media 2 000 000$ (they kept quoting the total program cost as if it had ALL been paid without the publicity produced). I'm not saying that it shouldn't have been looked into, but it WAS investigated unlike the billions in kickbacks paid to friends by conservatives during the 80s. But it was not something orchestrated from the top to rob the people, just some people in the machine taking advantage of the system. That will always happened irrespective of the government.

This government, on the other hand, has started wasting our money again, giving billion dollar contracts without calling for tenders to the military-industrial complex (Boeing and friends). That's billions of dollars just thrown out without competition. They promised transparency... and established a strict clamp down on the media. No minister talks to the media, the prime minister has not made a public statement more than 4 or 5 times since election (probably waiting for Dubya's permission to talk). The media have been forbidden to film the arrival of dead canadian soldiers from Afghanistan. But nobody in the media seems to find the changes bad. Go figure. Just the fact that the conservatives abandonned the Kyoto commitments that Canada made under the liberals should be a scandal worthy of the most holy furor, particularly since the latest reports that made the big oil firms' propaganda show for what they truly were. But not a peep. The media are not even commenting on the ties of the PM to oil companies (yes, just like Dubya, that's where he was working in the private sector). No independent media here either.

Re:The reality is... (1)

nostrad (879390) | more than 7 years ago | (#17893778)

What is the last movies that you just had to see?
Couldn't have said it better myself. The fact that I recently had 6 free tickets and actually had trouble finding anything I would like to watch would probably say something (and I still have 2 tickets left, after inviting a friend to go with me and watch 2 movies in one day just to actually use them).

Re:The reality is... (1)

antiMStroll (664213) | more than 7 years ago | (#17894694)

"The MPAA knows the claim is bogus..."

Lying to the police or the courts, those who adminster the law, is an offense punishable by jail term and fines, yet the far more grevious misleading lawmakers is considered business as usual. One act affects an individual or small group while the other a nation. Why aren't these people going to jail? I'm all for this being considered a form of treason.

This makes sense (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17892578)

Documentaries have always been a minority in their number of releases, so it makes sense that most piracy would be fiction.

MPAA's most successful tactic... (4, Funny)

HaeMaker (221642) | more than 7 years ago | (#17892584)

Make movies so horrible no one would bother recording it.

Re:MPAA's most successful tactic... (1)

Farmer Tim (530755) | more than 7 years ago | (#17893726)

Make movies so horrible no one would bother recording it.

But people record them anyway, regardless of how bad they are.

Its like Blackbeard plundering Pogs...

Re:MPAA's most successful tactic... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17894488)

dude! POGS ROCK!!!!!!!!!!

Well... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17894086)

I'd post a link to a torrent of Gigli, but I'm out of eye bleach and it might well be one of those files the MPAA puts out there to discourage piracy.

Lord only knows, that has to be more effective than their other tactics...

Re:MPAA's most successful tactic... (1)

Seule (128009) | more than 7 years ago | (#17894558)

Aren't they already doing this?

I don't know why... (3, Insightful)

Dasupalouie (1038538) | more than 7 years ago | (#17892596)

Why are they worried about camcorders? Really come on now, I am sure at least one of you has seen pirated movies, they are all screeners for reviewing for awards and are all done by employees inside these studios. In reality, rather than looking at the audience and blaming the people that actually pay to go see a movie, they should be looking at themselves and do internal investigations.

FYI clarrification (3, Insightful)

edwardpickman (965122) | more than 7 years ago | (#17892638)

there have only been 179 movies recorded with a camcorder over the past three years out of the 1,400 that the Hollywood studios released.

That technique is just one of the methods and is arguably the worst way to pirate. A lot of films get bootlegged during post production and often show up before the film is released in theaters. Waterworld showed up in Russia as this chaotic mix of dailies and some cut scenes, not that the final release was much better. The most popular way to pirate has to be ripped DVDs. My friends in distribution call them $20 masters. You buy one copy and use it as a master recording. I shot a couple of low budget films and my distributor told me he saw bootlegs selling for a $1 in Malaysia right next to 100 mill Hollywood films also selling for $1. There is no market in South East Asia for domestic films, they're all pirated and sold openly. I think you'll find there are pirates of every film made. Pirating is largely free and if they are reselling the pirates DVDs are cheap to burn.

Re:FYI clarrification (2, Informative)

punkr0x (945364) | more than 7 years ago | (#17893916)

Which is exactly what the feature article says:

the window of availability of the camcorded versions is very short. Counterfeiters invariably seek to improve the quality of their DVDs by dropping the camcorder versions as soon as the studios begin production of authentic DVDs (which provide the source for perfect copies).

MPAA lies - film at eleven! (1)

DreamerFi (78710) | more than 7 years ago | (#17892640)

(but don't bring your cam-corders!)

Fuck the MPAA (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17892900)

Fuck the MPAA in the asshole with a big rubber dick. With no lubrication. Or, you could also say using blood for lubrication.

To paraphrase Mark Twain... (2, Insightful)

fahrbot-bot (874524) | more than 7 years ago | (#17893132)

There are lies, damn lies, and MP/RIAA statistics.

Re:To paraphrase Mark Twain... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17893510)

Then, there is your mama.


Your mama lied when she said your daddy is doin' okay.

Your mama said a damned lie when she said she even knows who your daddy is.

You are a statistic because you're an illegitimate son of a whore, like many others, and while this fact is unknown to you, you (like the MPAA) have begun to suspect that it is true.


But I prefer to sum all of this up by just calling you a bastard.

Of course it's fiction (1)

Sleeping Kirby (919817) | more than 7 years ago | (#17893238)

Everyone knows that Hong Kong is the piracy of the world. Who would think otherwise?

Eat Shit MPAA (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17893318)

The MPAA needs to eat shit. Only swallowing after thoroughly chewing said fecal matter.

Served its purpose... (3, Insightful)

debest (471937) | more than 7 years ago | (#17893536)

The movie industry made a big deal out of this simply to get some good headlines. Geist's expected hatchet job on its "facts" are beside the point. Virtually no one will hear it: only those already tuned in to the lies are reading Geist's columns.

The purpose of the hype was to provide "justification" for Bev Oda to push for the reforms that she and the content industry have been working on. If this goes as I expect, watch for some more sabre-rattling headlines to come, followed quickly by a copyright reform bill that will address the content industry's wish list.

As much as I don't want another election, I hope the Conservatives' upcoming budget is defeated, so that any of Oda's bills will die on the table when the government falls.

Re:Served its purpose... (3, Insightful)

canfirman (697952) | more than 7 years ago | (#17894078)

As much as I don't want another election, I hope the Conservatives' upcoming budget is defeated, so that any of Oda's bills will die on the table when the government falls.

The problem is that if it isn't Oda, it'll be somebody else. The movie and music industries will just turn their attention to the next Heritage Minister. No matter what political party is in power, the movie and music industry will always shmooze with the government to get their way.

YUO fAIL IT?! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17893702)

the project is inp House... pathetic. the rain..we can be sure that I've

Incentive to watch a movie at the movie theatres? (2, Insightful)

arock99 (612650) | more than 7 years ago | (#17893898)

Their lost revenue isnt some cheap cammed version of a movie here...it's because more people than ever before have big screen televions at home. DVD is also to blame...the quality is just better than ever before at home and people have more reason to either rent or buy a movie. The novelty of watching it on a big screen has worn off to some point. What they need to do is give people more incentive to go see it while it is still at the movie theatre. Perhaps a voucher where you get a discount if you buy the movie on DVD later...or perhaps try and make more movies people want to watch. There is a reason why there is a lot more direct to DVD movies than ever before. Movie theatres are going to become a novelty someday and will simply complement simultaneous release on DVD of movies. It's up to the industry to wake up and learn this sooner rather than later. Look at the music industry...they lost more revenues than they could have by trying to fight digital music downloads rather than embrace it. It is nice to see that the video game industry seems to have learned from all of this by letting people download video games on their consoles and letting amateur gave developer in on the revenue pie (360, PS3, and wii all allow you to download games). One thing's for sure though let's hope they never go entirely digital...it is nice to own a movie you can see on your shelf...the same applies to video games

Real Piracy (3, Interesting)

HeyBob! (111243) | more than 7 years ago | (#17893926)

I got this from a friend in the biz:
Location: somewhere in the former Eastern Bloc (I can't remember the actual city)
Film lands at airport and is sent out to a series of theaters via courier. Except that the courier van is actual a portable dubbing studio on wheels (worth 100's of k's). The pirates took a couple of hours to do all the deliveries and by that time had a pristine digital copy of the movie.

The way they were caught was the studio inserted unique frames in to every copy of the print made (1000's of prints around the world). They were able to nail it down to an area and then sent investigators to watch for the projectionist to make the copies. When that panned out, they finally figured out that it was being done by the courier company.

Let's Play "Translate the Statistics" (1)

Atraxen (790188) | more than 7 years ago | (#17894622)

There's lies, damned lies, and statistics. We know the XIAA loves all three, but lets add rationality to the firestorm with a game of "Translate the Statistics".

"MPAA analysis of counterfeit copies of recently released movies on DVD seized throughout the world reveals that more than 90 percent can be sourced back to theatrical camcording. As of August 2006, MPAA had documented 179 member company titles that had been stolen in this manner since 2004, providing the source copies for pirate DVDs discovered in the markets of 46 other countries on every inhabited continent. In 2005, 23 percent of camcords worldwide were sourced to Canada."

179 titles Camcorded
90% of Pirate DVD's from Cam.s = 161 total -- % Yar'd = 11.5
23% of camcords from Canada = 37 -- % Yar'd = 2.6

% Yar'd = value/1400

i.e. 37 movies over a 3 year span were originally recorded by camcorder, and can be found somewhere in the world. A very compelling case for whatever special rights the XIAA is currently demanding of the government. Pfft.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...