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.
Filed Under: camcording, canada, punishment
Comments on “How Do You Ban Someone From Posessing A 'Recording Device'?”
Come to think of it, even the human brain is a ‘recording device’..
Right, so… no brain for this guy(?)
That’ll make his life tough for awhile.
Re: Re: Re:
nah, he’ll just become a politician, they get along fine without them.
Is he barred from that forever? Wow.
Just think of all the lost movie revenue now that they’ve stopped piracy.
> Is he barred from that 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.
Re: Re: Forever
Except for convicted sex offenders, regardless of the severity of their crime. So, no, not just for the length of his parole/probation, at least not in the US.
Re: Re: Re: Forever
> Except for convicted sex offenders, regardless
> 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.
Re: Re: Re:2 Forever
do you have any links to articles about that?
Let the punishment fit the crime
His time should be commuted to the time he spent watching “Dan in Real Life”
If I were him, I would move to the US after completing probation.
I doubt the US would accept an ex-con.
Re: Re: Move
The MPAA would have the FBI watching his ass 24/7.
yeah, because a lengthy prison sentence and a $250,000 fine is much better.
Re: Re: Move
And the RIAA can administer the big fine directly, to save the time of going in front of a Judge.
I rather doubt all the decision says is a “recording device”” without explaining what the phrase means.
A copy of the decision, which I am not able to locate, would help in any discussions of the phrase.
All recording devices
Does that mean that he can’t use an answering machine (or just not own one so he can still use a vendor provided answering service). BUT, the silliness goes on…..
He’s banned from “owning,” but can he “borrow” anything he wants from friends? 🙂
He could, but then he’d be violating another one of the terms of his probation: associating with anyone involved in movie piracy. (/sarcasm)
He’d better start vetting all his friends pretty carefully…
..and as with most decrees like this, totally pointless. There’s no way to enforce something like that. Absolutely impossible, unless they lock him up in solitary.
What a waste of everyone involved’s time.
“There’s no way to enforce something like that. Absolutely impossible, unless they lock him up in solitary.”
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…)
Hmm you can “record” what is said & happens with pen & paper, so I guess that he’s banned from owning pen & paper now also
(not to mention that you can copy a book with that technology)
Ok so the guy messed up…but I think that is a little too far…
Hey buddy, move to Mexico…you will probably have a better standard of living and it’s warmer.
Re: WTF Canada!?
Yuh seem to hate the northern neighbors, eh?
Re: Re: WTF Canada!?
Oh not really…. But after this and from what I heard about CanCon…just doesn’t sound very friendly! Oh, and don’t forget the cold factor 🙂
Is it owning a recording device, or possessing a recording device. Because there’s a difference there.
Hmm, if he’s banned from owning a recording device, how can he sign in to his parole officer, unless he can use a pencil.
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!
Except this is in CANADA.
The judge is a cretian
A pen and a piece of paper is a recording device. That’s amazingly stupid, even for a judge in Canada.
Not to flame or anything, but you start by spelling ‘possessing’ correctly in the headline. 😉