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...
- EU Advocate General Declares That Hotels Don't Need To Pay Copyright License To Have In-Room Television
- Hollywood Accounting Back In Court: How Has Spinal Tap Only Earned $81 In Merchandise Sales For Its Creators?
- Off We Go: Oracle Officially Appeals Google's Fair Use Win
- The Reason The Copyright Office Misrepresented Copyright Law To The FCC: Hollywood Told It To
- Free Open Shared: A Conversation With Me About Copyright At Wikimedia