How Do You Ban Someone From Posessing A 'Recording Device'?

from the seems-to-rule-out-a-lot... dept

Tue, Feb 24th 2009 10:12am — Mike Masnick

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.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: camcording, canada, punishment

29 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Mark, 24 Feb 2009 @ 10:19am

Come to think of it, even the human brain is a 'recording device'..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- :Lobo Santo, 24 Feb 2009 @ 10:43am
  
  Re:
  Right, so... no brain for this guy(?)
  
  That'll make his life tough for awhile.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 24 Feb 2009 @ 11:10am
    
    Re: Re:
    nah, he'll just become a politician, they get along fine without them.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 Feb 2009 @ 10:42am

Is he barred from that forever? Wow.

Just think of all the lost movie revenue now that they've stopped piracy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- BTR1701, 24 Feb 2009 @ 10:46am
  
  Re: Forever
  > 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.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 24 Feb 2009 @ 11:50am
    
    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.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - BTR1701, 25 Feb 2009 @ 7:56am
      
      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.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 26 Feb 2009 @ 6:49am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Forever
        do you have any links to articles about that?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
ChurchHatesTucker (profile), 24 Feb 2009 @ 10:45am

Let the punishment fit the crime
His time should be commuted to the time he spent watching "Dan in Real Life"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jasen (profile), 24 Feb 2009 @ 10:52am

Move
If I were him, I would move to the US after completing probation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 24 Feb 2009 @ 11:54am
  
  Re: Move
  I doubt the US would accept an ex-con.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Chronno S. Trigger, 24 Feb 2009 @ 1:09pm
    
    Re: Re: Move
    The MPAA would have the FBI watching his ass 24/7.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- cvpunk, 24 Feb 2009 @ 1:52pm
  
  Re: Move
  yeah, because a lengthy prison sentence and a $250,000 fine is much better.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - bigpicture, 24 Feb 2009 @ 2:26pm
    
    Re: Re: Move
    And the RIAA can administer the big fine directly, to save the time of going in front of a Judge.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 Feb 2009 @ 11:00am

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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
TasMot (profile), 24 Feb 2009 @ 11:19am

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.....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ariel, 24 Feb 2009 @ 11:26am

So...
He's banned from "owning," but can he "borrow" anything he wants from friends? :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Valkor, 24 Feb 2009 @ 12:04pm
  
  Re: So...
  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...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dan, 24 Feb 2009 @ 11:32am

Dumb..
..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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- ChurchHatesTucker (profile), 24 Feb 2009 @ 11:37am
  
  Re: Dumb..
  "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...)
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 Feb 2009 @ 11:36am

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)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Some IT Guy, 24 Feb 2009 @ 11:58am

WTF Canada!?
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- adanac ho, 24 Feb 2009 @ 12:11pm
  
  Re: WTF Canada!?
  OUCH!
  Yuh seem to hate the northern neighbors, eh?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Some IT Guy, 24 Feb 2009 @ 12:20pm
    
    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 :)
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 Feb 2009 @ 12:36pm

Is it owning a recording device, or possessing a recording device. Because there's a difference there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Rabble Rouser (profile), 24 Feb 2009 @ 1:41pm

Banned?
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!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 24 Feb 2009 @ 9:25pm
  
  Re: Banned?
  Except this is in CANADA.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
cKarlGo, 25 Feb 2009 @ 7:05am

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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Xiera, 25 Feb 2009 @ 11:15am

Not to flame or anything, but you start by spelling 'possessing' correctly in the headline. ;)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]