Who benefits from the camcordering law?

On my lunch, I skimmed over an article about the first arrest under Canada's recent anti-camcordering law. A particular quote struck me:

The association also credits the industry's investment in a series of technological systems.

One such system, at a cost of nearly $5,000 to the studio, was a night-vision detector set up to scan the auditorium for digital camera lenses. It was installed in the Guzzo Lacordaire cinema in question, said Gary Osmond, director of investigations for the CMPDA in Montreal.

“This was the first time we used the technology and we caught someone, so it was obviously worth the money and the research and development.”

To whom was it "worth it"? The spokesman works for the Distributor's Association - a lobby group. The number of Canadians employed by that crew must be quite small.

Was it "worth it" for the actors or crew of the film? Have their salaries been affected? The directors? The writers?

How about the theatre? Will they see more or less sales now that people know that their film will be interrupted enforcers emulating the SWAT teams they see on the screen?

Before enacting laws like these, we need to properly assess the benefit to citizens.