How Do You Ban Someone From Posessing A 'Recording Device'?
from the seems-to-rule-out-a-lot... dept
Michael Geist points out that a guy in Canada has been convicted under an anti-camcording law for recording a showing of the movie Dan in Real Life (I'm sure it was big on all the torrent sites). However, what struck me as interesting was the punishment handed out. The guy is on 24 months of probation, has to perform 120 hours of community service, is barred from entering a movie theater or associating with anyone involved in movie piracy. And... he is barred from owning any recording device.
That seems a bit broad. After all, most mobile phones these days are recording devices. Any computer is a recording device. An iPod can be a recording device. I can understand the thought process that went into such a ban, but it seems to overreach in its intended impact.
That seems a bit broad. After all, most mobile phones these days are recording devices. Any computer is a recording device. An iPod can be a recording device. I can understand the thought process that went into such a ban, but it seems to overreach in its intended impact.






Reader Comments (rss)
(Flattened / Threaded)
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Just think of all the lost movie revenue now that they've stopped piracy.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
That'll make his life tough for awhile.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Let the punishment fit the crime
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Forever
No, just during the length of his parole/probation. At least that's how it would work in the USA. Placing those conditions on a person who has served his sentence free and clear would be unconstitutional.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Move
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
A copy of the decision, which I am not able to locate, would help in any discussions of the phrase.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
All recording devices
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
So...
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Dumb..
What a waste of everyone involved's time.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
(not to mention that you can copy a book with that technology)
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Dumb..
Too true. You can 'borrow' something you don't 'own.' (There seems to be a copyfight meme in there, but I must be too tired...)
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Forever
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Move
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
WTF Canada!?
Hey buddy, move to Mexico...you will probably have a better standard of living and it's warmer.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: So...
He'd better start vetting all his friends pretty carefully...
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: WTF Canada!?
Yuh seem to hate the northern neighbors, eh?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: WTF Canada!?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Move
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Banned?
So let me get this straight, he can't own a pencil and paper, VCR, PC, camera, tape recorder, or brain. Now that should be appealed under the 8th amendment!
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Move
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Move
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Banned?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
The judge is a cretian
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Forever
> of the severity of their crime. So, no, not
> just for the length of his parole/probation,
> at least not in the US.
Actually, there are several cases coming up from varous states that challange the constitutionality of many aspects of those lifetime sex offender punishments-- especially with defendants where there isn't any real "sickness", like a high school kid having sex with his girlfriend, who is only a year or so younger than he is. It will be interesting to see how these cases come out. Based on past precedent, a lot of these restrictions would seem to be in danger of being invalidated.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Forever
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Add Your Comment