The film industry invades privacy – "You can click but you can’t hide"
A defiant individual in Boca Raton, Florida, found no sympathy for the gigantic unregulated film industry. If anything, the movie industry should be on the test here for mediocre products and expensive movie tickets. Only theaters make a huge fortune off their $ 4.50 soda and popcorn. One might wonder, “Why does a 16-ounce soda cost $ 3 more in a theater than in your 7-11 neighborhood? Is it a special soda-only, top-secret theater?
So they spend millions to make a movie, but they make a hundred million dollar profit in the theater alone. Then we have the pay-per-view, followed by the cable pay station, and then of course the movie comes out as DVD. And if that’s not enough, they end up in video rental stores. So where do these “internet hackers” come in? You know the people who share their movies from their computers, from their homes. How dare the film industry cry because a citizen shares a movie with another citizen? What follows, video rental.
What if you spend $ 4.00 to rent a movie, but before you go back you let your brother take it home and watch it? Does that necessarily imply that you are a “pirate” because you shared a movie with someone who didn’t pay the video store their $ 4.00? Can we even say for sure that they would have even spent the money to see the movie in the first place? Am I to assume that the video store would consider me a “pirate” and could say that I made them lose money? Where will it end? If someone sold the movie for profit, grant it, make him walk on board. Yes!
This is an absurd quote from Dan Glickman, president and CEO of MPAA. “We will not stand by while people steal valuable copyrighted material without regard to the law or the rights of creative people to be paid for their efforts. With these lawsuits, our message to the THIEVES of the Internet is come back loud and clear: you are not anonymous, we will find you and you will be responsible: you can click but you cannot hide. ” Whoa, whoa, whoa … Did he really say “You can click but you can’t hide?” It’s kind of a cross between The Sheriff of Nottingham and J. Edgar Hoover.
Are you kidding? It’s about squeezing the public for more bloody money. Who do you think gets the money from the Lawsuits? Do you think the directors get it, or maybe the actors, or maybe the so-called “Creative People”? And when they say “You are not anonymous, doesn’t that imply we don’t have privacy in our own homes? People say we know what’s on your computer, in your home, and we don’t need a search warrant to enter any of the 2. Think about it, “YOU CAN CLICK BUT YOU CAN’T HIDE”, the older brother is watching us and his name is “The Film Industry.” If they get away with invading our privacy just to do something even richer rich lawyers So what’s next? Where does it stop? Where do they draw the line and haven’t crossed it yet. It’s not about “Creative People’s Rights.” They got paid and this has nothing to do with them, so don’t expect them to be compensated because this money goes to people who don’t need more money.
I don’t know, maybe I’m getting a little paranoid, but when an industry as powerful and influential as the Motion Picture Association of America tells us that they “know what they were clicking on and we can’t hide from them,” then this problem becomes It becomes much bigger than a movie that is shared on the Internet, it becomes a problem of Civil Rights, Privacy and protection under our own Constitution. They wouldn’t care less if people share their movies on the internet, they’re more interested in the bigger picture, which is setting a precedent for invasion of personal privacy, and that’s just the tip of the iceberg. That is the opening of the “Pandora’s Box”.
Should the court find that my personal computer is not “personal” at all? David faces Goliath alone and alone armed by the Constitution of the United States and the rights that guarantee and protect every citizen. Or will the court rule that big industry is above even our own constitution? After all, they are a very powerful and influential group with an army of the best lawyers money can buy. They have the defendants in this action paying over the phone $ 5,000 and up. A separate legal office has been hired to do nothing but make as much money as possible by scaring everyday law-abiding citizens into the settlements.
Although most of the defendants in these lawsuits were unaware of any law prohibiting “peer-to-peer” file sharing, they were cited under the 1976 pre-Internet copyright law and even told they could face a penalty. imprisonment for up to 5 years and face statutory law. damages of up to $ 30,000 for each movie on your computer, in whole or in part. The hotline informed this writer that his client was “willing to settle for $ 6,000”, and told him that there was a lot of evidence and that if one “knew it was illegal or not, that had nothing to do with the case” . This is where Mr. Bartels comes into the picture.
Mr. Bartels contacts the attorneys after receiving a subpoena. The attorneys say they cannot discuss the case and all they can do is direct Mr. Bartels to the “settlement hotline.”
The phone call to the “settlements hotline” is very reminiscent of a timeshare tour.
Mr. Bartels goes on to tell the settlement agent that he is unaware of and never knew of any laws that he violated. He asks the agent “how do you know what’s on my computer? Did you really go to my computer and watch the two movies that you claim I have there, because if you did, you would have seen that they are not what you say they are?” . How did you get access to the files on my computer? Don’t you need a court order for that? Who would issue a court order for something so tiny anyway? with “we have a lot of evidence against him and he should settle now while he can.”
It is at this point that Mr. Bartels demanded the disclosure of each and every piece of evidence against him, warning the agent that he would be defending himself and therefore had the right to see if this hotline was established as a hoax. to make money. They informed him that they would ask the law firm they were outsourced to and let Mr. Bartels know in a day or two, and that was the last he heard from them.
There are “real” pirates and counterattacks that intentionally break the law and generate billions of dollars a year. These people are criminals who know they are breaking the law, but they continue to break it anyway. Then we have those who are browsing online and joining Peer-To-Peer groups that make it possible to share files with others. It could be a movie, it could be a book, or it could be a collection of poems. Never mind. If there are companies on the Internet that make it possible for anyone to connect to MILLIONS of users, then that is where they should focus. There should be some kind of warning about what is and what is not acceptable to download, as well as prohibiting, rather than encouraging the use of these files.
The movie industry has had its day in court many times over the past few years with internet sites for these same issues, but the companies are still up and running, no changes, no disclaimers, no problem. That sends a message to the users of these sites that “everything is legal or we wouldn’t be here yet.” If the laws are being broken, talk to the companies that provide the service, not the end users who have no intention of violating any copyright laws and are only there for fun.
This is a far cry from what is considered “piracy”, in fact the money the industry loses is from actual pirates making and selling pirated copies of quality movies, not from the neighbor who has no intention of breaking any laws. , if there is any law. What are we going to do with people who have their own movies that they bought on their computers as part of the newer home media setup? Will these people be labeled “Distributors”? What happens if I buy a movie and show it in my own home to 20 people? You come for me? I suppose I must bear in mind the immortal words of the MPAA, “You can click, but you can’t hide”, or translated into proper English, “Big companies are watching you.” Now, walk the board, pirate.