A defiant individual in Boca Raton, Florida found no sympathy for the giant unregulated film industry. If anything, the film industry should be judged here for mediocre products and overpriced movie tickets. The theaters alone make a huge fortune off their $4.50 sodas and popcorn. One might ask, “Why does a 16-ounce soda cost $3 more at a movie theater than at your neighborhood 7-11? Is a top-secret movie theater special just soda?”

So they spend millions making a movie, but they make a hundred million dollars profit on the theater alone. Then we have pay per view, followed by Pay station Cable, and then of course the movie comes out as a DVD. And if that’s not enough, they end up at video rental stores. So where do these “Internet Pirates” 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? Next up, video rentals.

What if you spend $4.00 to rent a movie, but before you come 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 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 were to sell the movie for profit, give it up, have them walk the board. Yes!

This is an absurd quote from Dan Glickman, president and CEO of the MPAA. “We will not stand idly 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 Internet THIEVES is comes back loud and clear: you are not anonymous, we will find you and you will be held accountable: you can click but you can’t hide.” Wow, wow, wow… 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 blood 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’re not anonymous, that doesn’t mean we don’t have privacy in our own homes. Folks, they’re saying we know what’s on your computer, in your home, and we don’t need a search warrant. Think about it, “YOU CAN CLICK BUT YOU CAN’T HIDE”, the big brother is looking at us and his name is “The Movie Industry”. If they get away with invading our privacy only for rich lawyers even richer, then what next? Where does it stop ?Where do they draw the line and they haven’t crossed it already? This isn’t about “The Rights of Creative People” 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 and we can’t hide from them” then this is the problem. becomes much bigger than a movie being shared on the Internet, it becomes an issue of civil rights, privacy, and protection under our own Constitution. They couldn’t care less if people share their movies on the internet, they’re more interested in the big 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 “Pandora’s Box”.

Should the court rule that my personal computer is not “Personal” at all? David faces Goliath alone and only armed by the Constitution of the United States and the rights that it guarantees and protects 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 settling over the phone for $5,000 or more. An independent law firm has been hired to do nothing but make as much money as possible by scaring law-abiding citizens every day into settlements.

Although most of the defendants in these trials were unaware of any law prohibiting “peer-to-peer” file sharing, they were cited to the pre-Internet copyright law of 1976 and even told they could serve time. imprisonment of up to 5 years and face legal sanctions. damages of up to $30,000 for each movie on your computer, in whole or in part. The hotline informed this writer that their client was “willing to settle for $6,000,” telling him that there was plenty of evidence and whether 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 lawyers say they cannot discuss the case and all they can do is direct Mr. Bartels to the “settlement hotline.”

The phone call to the “settlement hotline” is very reminiscent of doing a timeshare tour.

Mr. Bartels goes on to tell the settlement agent that he does not know and never knew of any laws he has broken. He asks the agent “how do you know what’s on my computer and did you actually go to my computer and see the two movies you say I have on there, because if you had you would have seen that they’re not what you say they are?” . are. How did you access the files on my computer? Don’t you need a warrant for that? Who would issue an order for something so small anyway? above with “we have a lot of evidence against you and you need to settle now while you can.”

It is at this point that Mr. Bartels demanded the release of any and all evidence against him, informing the agent that he would be defending himself and therefore had the right to see if this hotline was resolved. set up as a scam to make money. They informed him that they would ask the law firm they were outsourcing 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 counterfeiters who intentionally break the law and make billions of dollars a year. These people are criminals who know they are breaking the law, but continue to break it anyway. Then we have those who browse online and join 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. No matter. If there are companies on the Internet that make it possible for anyone to connect to MILLIONS of users, then they are the ones you should focus on. There should be some kind of warning about what is and 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 years with internet sites for these same issues, but the companies are still up and running, no changes, no resignations, no problems. That sends a message to users of these sites that “everything is legal or else we wouldn’t be here yet.” If laws are being broken, discuss it with the companies that provide the service, not with the end users who have no intention of violating any copyright laws and are just there to have fun.

This is a far cry from what is considered “piracy”, in fact the money the industry actually loses comes from actual pirates making and selling pirated copies of quality movies, not the next door guy who has no intention of break any law. , if there really are laws. What are we going to do about people who have their own movies that they bought on their computers as part of the latest home media installation? Are these people going to be labeled “Distributors”? What if I buy a movie and show it in my own home to 20 people? Are you coming after me? I guess I have to keep in mind the immortal words of the MPAA, “You can click, but you can’t hide,” or translated into proper English, “Big Business Is Watching You.” Now walk the plank, pirate.