We received a notice from Paramount today. It's not really relevant to Western Film since we are a second run theatre but I found it interesting nonetheless.
This is the most elaborate method of trying to keep a film from pirates yet.
Transformers opens at most theatres on Tuesday July 3. The prints will arrive on Friday the 29th. A film print generally comes in two metal cans, each one holding some of the smaller reels that put together constitute the film. The second can is going to have a combination lock on it?! Not until Monday the 2nd will the theatres will be able to get their combination by phone or over the Internet from Technicolor.
The desired result is the full film won't be made up until as close as possible to the opening to keep employees from pirating it.
I wish people would realize piracy is theft and the movie industry didn't have to take all these expensive precautions.
If I was running a first run theatre I'd be a little nervous. If something goes wrong and you can't get that second can open there isn't much time to get another print. All it would take is for the depot to mix up two of the locks or write a number wrong.
I'd have a set of bolt cutters handy.
10 comments:
Piracy in reference to movies is actually NOT theft. It is copyright infringement. The movie has NOT been stolen, it has simply been copied and played without the appropriate permission and without paying the appropriate royalties.
While neither is legal, it is obvious that "theft" has a greater social stigma associated with it than "copyright infringement". It is amazing that the movie and music industries have been able to make this blatantly untrue statement to increase the stigma of "piracy" and have so many people believe it.
As I've said before, just because something isn't physical doesn't mean it's not theft. As far as copyright infringment, piracy is a different kind than using a photograph in an advertisement without permission.
I took a Pop Culture course last year which defined consumption as eating, watching, using, playing or even wearing a product produced.
Consumption of any kind without permission and payment is theft.
Whomever left this comment should think about whatever they 'produce' at their job, even if it's not a physical item. Wouldn't you be annoyed if someone else came along and used your ' product' without paying for it. Eventually you would lose your job.
One thing most people seem to forget with movie piracy is the ones making money are the criminals who manufacture and distribute the pirated DVD's sold all over the world.
Okay, from your last comment I'd definitely have to say that you misunderstood my main point. Is piracy morally and legally wrong? Absolutely - I will completely agree with you there.
That said, when the movie industry has every right to say "Don't pirate" because they have both basic morals and the law on their side, why do they then choose to make a _false_ statement to follow it "Piracy is theft"? Are they aware the statement is false? Considering the number of lawyers that they employ, I'd have to lean towards yes.
Now you made a small attempt to justify that piracy is theft, yet even in your first paragraph you said "As far as copyright infringment, piracy is a different kind than using a photograph in an advertisement without permission." A different kind maybe, but copyright infringement nonetheless. When the movie industry tries to protect themselves because "someone else came along and used your ' product' without paying for it" and they are afraid that "Eventually you would lose your job" they do so for copyright infringement, _not_ theft.
My main point goes back to the dislike and downright lack of respect for the industry for using these "scare tactics", where they try to shift the type of crime (why...?) and then attack individuals through law suits (I know I'm opening up another can of worms here). Furthermore, I hate how we as 'consumers of a product produced' blindly accept this lie and continue to propagate it.
All said and done, if you just change your statement to say "I wish people would realize piracy is '_copyright infringement/wrong_' and the movie industry didn't have to take all these expensive precautions" - I'd be happy.
I think at this point we are just playing the defintion game. Piracy is copyright infringment. I don't understand why you object so much to it being called piracy?
At the very least calling it piracy is more effective at making it sound bad than the rather benign sounding copyright infringment. Even one of the torrent sites calls itself piratebay.
I'm always prone to using examples so I'll offer a couple.
I used to run a home business selling old magazines, mostly old movie, fashion,tv and music magazines. Most of the people I sold to were collectors of certain people such as Madonna. It was a big enough business I did it full time for a couple years before the Western Film job opened up. I shut it down a couple years ago. It was mostly because ebay had saturated the market but a lot of it was because the images most collectors were buying the magazines for were readily available on the internet. The copyright holders of those photographs lost income and I lost money and eventually the whole business.
There was a story on the news today about Sam the Record Man in Toronto selling off 70 years worth of memorabilia it had accumulated becuase the store is closing. Most of the record stores have closed and you can't tell me people have stopped listening to music. Some of it would be online sales but the main reason would be downloaded copies. Whether one steals a CD from the store or downloads a copy the end result is the same.
The fault is squarely on the comsumer, if people didn't download the songs there wouldn't a problem.
The movie industry so far hasn't been hit as bad as music because movies are much larger and not as portable.
Now here's a bit of a copyright question. I have downloaded songs but only ones I had already purchased on vinyl LP or 45s way back when. No one makes turntables any more so I can't play them. Would that be considered piracy or copyright infringment? I don't think it would be either since I had already purchased the songs, I'm just getting new copies.
Your opinion?
I can't believe they went that dfar as to LOCK the cans!!! i think it's so silly - what if i mix/mess up the reels during build up? what if there is a sound problem?? what if there was a printing error and i need a new copy of the film?? how am i supposed to get it in time for the 8pm Monday show??? stupid! AND there is no time to even screen it b4 the public sees the movie - STUPID!!!
The 8pm show on Monday wasn't mentioned in the notice I recived and I just heard about it yesterday so I think it was added later. They may or may not change the procedure. Actually since I haven't heard otherwise and Monday is a holiday they probably don't have time.
It kinda sucks for the people who work at Paramount and the Film Depot since all this was decided in the States where Monday is not a holiday.
I'm glad I'm not working in any theatre that has a probelm with a print at the 8pm show Monday. With the fan anticipation for that film there may be a riot if they can't see it, or worse, get to see part of it then something happens.
Back to the original comments...
I wasn't objecting to the use of the term piracy. I think it's been redefined and, as you said, we're playing a definition game there.
I was objecting to equating piracy to stealing. When I think of this I think of the ad that they used to air (and might still) of a thief stealing some poor kid's bike and then telling people that by copying a movie, they are doing the same. I think there is a world of difference between theft like that and copyright infringement. In one case you are actually depriving someone of an item, taking the money out of their wallet if you will. In the other you are speculating about potential loss of revenue. To go back to my example, someone who would be putting money _in_ the wallet no longer can. Yet no money is being taken out. If you're confused, think of someone breaking into your house and stealing one of your DVDs and the movie company being nice sending you a new one to replace it versus someone breaking into your house and _copying_ one of your DVDs but leaving it behind.
Potential loss of revenue is a very shady area and you cannot make any definite statements. You argue that people download images therefore magazines cannot be sold with the originals. People download music, therefore the CDs go unsold. I can just as easily bring in the counter argument that people who would never have seen the images or known about them are exposed to them thanks to the internet. A fraction of these people will go out and purchase the original to have, who otherwise would not have. Same with music. You are exposing an unknown artist to many more people who would never have heard them. The fraction that like the music will go out and buy the full CD to have the music. If they don't buy the CD, perhaps it's because the CD format is no longer useful. Just because tape or 8-track sales are at an all time low doesn't indicate that piracy is present. Perhaps "iPod killed the record store." I'm sure we could both quote studies that seem to prove our points, or anecdotes as well, neither proving anything conclusively. Again this is a very shady area, unlike outright theft.
In terms of downloading music for which you own a record copy, I'm pretty sure most of the copyright laws allow a second or backup copy to be made of one's collection for personal use only, in an attempt to protect the original. I would guess this extends back to your collection too.
My bottom line:
Piracy is copyright infringement. If you prefer - Piracy is piracy. However, piracy is NOT theft and I feel strongly that this is something the we should be stressing and about which we should be educating our fellow movie-goer.
-Copyright Act-
Music downloading seems to be no problem in Canada: Copyright Act, section 80, allows for making copies for private use. Uploading/sharing has been construed as distributing (a bad thing with respect to the Copyright Act) while downloading is "making a copy" for which section 80 provides an exemption from being copyright infringement.
Movies/videos are a different story. The Act does not provide an exemption for making copies for personal use. The next revision is likely going to both make this the case for music, and enact USA-style interpretations of WIPO--think DMCA and read www.michaelgeist.ca
(UOttawa law prof) for details.
-Products and technologies-
Turntables are still manufactured. I think Sony may have the last consumer model ~$200. Many "DJ" and professional models exist. Top dollar I've seen formally advertised is $15k for a very pretty belt driven, tripod-design and very fashionable model.
Vinyl is great. CDs are more portable. Rip 'em all while the Copyright Act allows it. The analogue nature of vinyl (record from line out) gives a nice hint about how in Canada citizens can ignore the presence of DRM locks.
-other laws-
Copyright falls in the "intellectual property" (IP) catagory. Everything about IP is imaginary and created by statute. Perhaps intangible is better diction than imaginary.
Piracy is a serious offence listed near treason in the Criminal Code ( www.canlii.org/en -- free access to legal judgments and statutes).
Theft is a property offence and requires depriving somebody of some thing. Licensing revenues just don't count here. Plus, especially with music, corporate interests got the Copyright Board ( www.cb-cda.gc.ca/new-e.html ) to implement a levy on blank media. That was a trade-off for the s. 80 exemption for copying music for private use.
If I'm already paying this levy to the entities who collect licensing revenues "just in case" I burn music instead of my own digital photos, then I will happily rip any music CD which comes into my possession.
Oh, copyright infringement does have a stigma. The statute describes min/max fines for each instance.
And just last week the movie industry got a special crime introduced into the Criminal Code for recording video in the theatre:
http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/redirector.aspx?RefererUrl=Publication.aspx%3fDocid=3066048%26file%3d4
(note this is not a novel offence, just a new way to charge offenders)
This is going to take me a while and the comments section doesn't have a spell checker so bear with me. I'll address the last two comments.
Per Anonymous:
As far as whether copyright infringement is theft is one of those situations where neither of us is going to change the other's mind and in a sense we are both right.
However a few things.
If I can modify your analogy about copyright infringment being the same as going into someone's HOME and copying a DVD and leaving the original. To my point of view it would be the same as going into a STORE and copying a DVD and leaving the original.
You are correct about both of us being able to 'prove' our case. It all depends on how one plays with the numbers. Some of the studies as to how much money the Studios lose due to piracy have assumed a person who buys a $5.00 pirate DVD would have bought a full price one if the pirate copy wasn't available. Obviously that isn't the case.
I've always considered the argument about people being exposed to unknown artists and going out and buying the CD a little iffy. Unles someone starts dowloading randomly they have to know about the song/artist to want to download the track in the first place. I think the percentage of people that would go out and buy a CD when they already have the song in the same quality on thier computer is pretty small.
Per Joshs:
As far as I know making a copy for personal use is legal for any kind of media in Canada including music or movies.
I've heard about expensive turntables but I haven't seen a consumer model in a long time, however I wasn't really looking.
The problem with records is they wear out and get damaged or skip. When they came out that was one of the selling points of CD's, they didn't wear out. Many people say records sound better which could be true however the other benefits of digital outweighed that. The same thing is happening with film, a video projector will never look as good as high quality 35mm film but film is a physical medium and subject to wear, scratches and dirt.
I agree the levy on blank media is a bit iffy. I wonder how that money gets distributed? Western Film pays about $400 a year for a SOCAN public performance license in order to play music while the audience is waiting for the film to start. However they've never asked what I'm playing so who gets the money?
Under the old law a person could only be prosecuted for camcording if it could be proved they were doing it for financial gain and not for 'personal use'. Obviously something pretty much impossible to prove. Hence the new law.
Well' I'm about typed out for now.
I just read this entire thread.
While both sides are (mostly) justifiable, it is more of a definition game and to me; this is why the issue seems like big circle. The question is, where do we place the line regarding copyright material (or "pirated material" or even "theft" as you call it) and I firmly believe that downloaded music and movies is a near-impossible thing to completely prohibit.
Cheers;
ANONYMOUSE (w/ whiskers)
Post a Comment