by Mike Masnick
Fri, Dec 7th 2007 2:24pm
Back during the big debate over the need for new laws against "camcording" a movie in Canada, Michael Geist pointed out that existing laws were already perfectly fine in dealing with the problem. Of course, despite all of that, the power of the movie industry lobbyists was too strong and the bill still became law. So, isn't interesting to find out (via Geist again) that a recent arrest for camcording in a movie theater didn't even happen under the new law, but under the old copyright law. So, once again, can someone explain why the MPAA needed that new law and why Canadian politicians agreed to it?
If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...
- Hillary Clinton's Intellectual Property Platform: Too Vague & Confusing
- Two Judges Punch Holes In Copyright Trolls' Claims That An IP Address Is The Same Thing As A Person
- This Song Belongs To You And Me: Lawsuit Filed To Declare Woodie Guthrie's Classic In The Public Domain
- Another Dumb Idea Out Of The EU: Giving Robots & Computers Copyright
- Judge Calls Out Malibu Media For Its Attempt To Cut And Run When Faced With Challenge To Its Infringement Claims